Hi, make sense, commited to svn.
Alex > Am 18.10.2016 um 22:37 schrieb Donald Jackson <donaldjs...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Alex, > > Personally I think we should not reject PDU's that have this case. While it > is pointless to send the same TLV multiple times in our case, we have > established that this behavior is implicitly 'ok' by having Kannel accept > these since the meta data patch (+- 7 years now). Changing this behavior > would potentially cause issues for users with no real gain. > > Thanks, > Donald > > On 18 October 2016 at 13:18, Alexander Malysh <amal...@kannel.org > <mailto:amal...@kannel.org>> wrote: > Hi, > > good catch! But there is a question: should we really accept such wrong PDUs > or reject them? > IMHO rejecting those would be the correct behavior but I don't see in SMPP > spec that case described. > > Thanks, > Alexander Malysh > > From: Stipe Tolj <st...@kannel.org> <mailto:st...@kannel.org> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 07:24 PM > To: > Cc: kannel_dev_mailinglist <devel@kannel.org> <mailto:devel@kannel.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c > Am 24.09.2016 13:55, schrieb Rene Kluwen: > > +1 from me. > > yep, good catch Donald. > > +1 for it. > > If no objections, will commit. > > -- > Best Regards, > Stipe Tolj > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany > > Kannel Foundation tolj.org <http://tolj.org/> system architecture > http://www.kannel.org/ <http://www.kannel.org/> http://www.tolj.org/ > <http://www.tolj.org/> > > stolj at kannel.org <http://kannel.org/> st at tolj.org <http://tolj.org/> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > Donald Jackson
