This relies on assumption that no two smppbox share a client. I cannot accept 
this.
Besides, I can have two smppboxes connected to my application

Aarno

On 19.10.2011, at 15:19, Rene Kluwen wrote:

> Like I said before: In clients.txt, you can put system-type to the
> opensmppbox-id and you are all set.
> 
> == Rene
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Aarno Syvänen
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2011 09:35
> To: [email protected] Devel
> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id
> 
> 
> In my case, there is an application between bearerbox and smppbox.
> Thus application must route to smppbox and not to its clients.
> 
> Aarno
> 
> 
> On 18.10.2011, at 23:25, Rene Kluwen wrote:
> 
>> In this case the boxcid represents the particular ESME in subject to route
>> the DLR/MO back to.
>> Every ESME represents a different box as far as bearerbox is concerned.
>> Multiple clients mean multiple bearerbox connections.
>> What is (in your opinion) the bug in this logic?
>> 
>> == Rene
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andreas Fink [mailto:[email protected]] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October, 2011 17:47
>> To: Rene Kluwen
>> Cc: devel Devel
>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id
>> 
>> On 18.10.2011, at 17:44, Rene Kluwen wrote:
>> 
>>> Once you look further in the opensmppbox documentation, you will see that
>>> system-type (or system-id if use-systemid-as-smsboxid is set to true) is
>>> used as boxcid whilst communicating to bearerbox.
>>> This is to facilitate the proper return path for DLR's (and also: MO's)
> to
>>> the different ESME clients that are connected to opensmppbox.
>>> 
>>> Secondly: You are right that opensmppbox-id is useless for routing
>> purposes.
>>> That's why it is never used.
>> 
>> but the purpose of the box-id is the routing back to the proper box.
> That's
>> why I believe this is  a bug
>> if you want to carry along ESME system type information to the bearerbox
> for
>> logging or whatever, that's fine but it shouldnt be in the box-id as that
>> has a clear purpose.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Reply via email to