Yes I supposed that was the reason... implementing some kind of asynchronous processing (freeing the thread and processing the reject/accept when it arrives) would be a lot more complicated and DLR's already do that well.
I suppose the "accepted-rejected by SMSC" DLRs are accomplished by setting a proper dlr-mask isnt't it? Anyone have tried this? Any hints? Regards, On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:57:59 +0300, Kalle Marjola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 04:17, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: > > Well, I've just patched my 1.3.2 with this and so far it seems to work ok. > > > > I've checked trying to send messages without defining an smsc and I've got: > > > > "Not routable. Do not try again." > > > > What I'm missing is the capability to detect wrong numbers, ie. if I > > try to send a message to "12345678" or "0000000" I've got an "0: > > Accepted for delivery", but I think I need DLR's for that isn't it? > > > > Isn't there any way to detect that kind of errors without DLR's? > > > Yes and no. What I understood from previous posts, these can be detected > with these 'accepted/rejected by SMSC' "DLRs" (not real DLRs, i.e. work > even when operator does not allow DLRs) > > However, this patch does not wait for that data as it can be delayed > lots more (queue inside SMSC driver etc.) - this will be the next patch > and even then that would be optional as it could easily result in HTTP > timeouts etc. (moreover, that patch is far more complicated because of > split messages etc.) > > > > > > > -- > &Kalle Marjola ::: Development ::: Helsinki ::: Enpocket > > -- Alejandro Guerrieri Magicom http://www.magicom-bcn.net/
