There is a patch attached to
http://bugs.kannel.org/view_bug_page.php?f_id=0000193 but it seems like
somewhat of a hack :)

It would be really nice to have this solved, an easy way would be to
normalize the dst value and then use it as proposed in the revision I
refered to below.

Regards
-- 
Tom Sommer


On Thu, April 20, 2006 11:33, Vincent CHAVANIS wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
>
> Yes, we had a long discussion on that issue. (check it on the archives)
> But the main problem is that the patch does't work when using prefix.
> We need to find a solution, but it's still pending...
>
>
> The problem is located on the fact that EMI/UCP is using the same TS in a
> second. SMPP protocol seems to work in a different way (TS are unique)
>
>
> regards
>
> --
> Telemaque - NICE - (FR)
> Service Technique - Developpement
> http://www.telemaque.fr/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel : +33 4 93 97 71 64 (fax 68)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Sommer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:20 AM
> Subject: Request: rev. 1.11 to dlr_mysql.c
>
>
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I'm having problems with DLR reports getting mixed up.
>> Basically I am getting DLR where the contents of the ANSWER (%A) doesn't
>>  match the number (%P). In the answer from the SMSC there is mentioned
>> a totally different number than the value of %P, which means the Answer
>> doesn't match the Number, which renders DLR useless.
>>
>> I noticed the only thing you use to differentiate which report URL goes
>>  where, is the timestamp and the SMSC, this doesn't seem viable, since
>> two SMS sent from the same SMSC in the same second, would create
>> conflicts.
>>
>> Looking at revision 1.11 of dlr_mysql.c, it seems this patch might
>> solve my problem, however it was backed out.
>>
>> Could you perhaps shed some light on this?
>> http://kannel.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gateway/gw/dlr_mysql.c.diff?r1=1.1
>> 0&r2=1.11
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Tom Sommer
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Tom Sommer
>> http://tomsommer.dk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Reply via email to