I wonder if there is any interest (or demand) to support SSL
connections for the internal Kannel TCP connections?
Is there anyone using bearerbox on one machine and smsbox/wapbox on an
other machine which may be on a completely different network and would
like to use SSL connections between
configure.in:
- LIBS=$LIBS -lssl,
- echo no;echo Either get a multithread-enabled SSL or configure with
--disable-ssl;
- exit 1,
+ LIBS=$LIBS -lssl -lcrypto,
+ echo no;AC_DEFINE(HAVE_LIBSSL)
+ LIBS=$LIBS -lssl
Thats what I mean. Most users run bearerbox and smsbox on the same machine.
If they are separate the its usually on two boxes sitting next to
each other and performance is a key issue in those situations (as
otherwhise you wouldnt use two boxes). So adding SSL to a performance
sensitive
Thats what I mean. Most users run bearerbox and smsbox on the same machine.
If they are separate the its usually on two boxes sitting next to
each other and performance is a key issue in those situations (as
otherwhise you wouldnt use two boxes). So adding SSL to a performance
one comment about Matt's approach to use SIM storage:
While debugging AT2 over the last few days I discovered that Nokia
phones have a big weakness which make them only really work well if
using SIM storage.
While testing I sent messages to myself. For some reason the message
went out but my
Hello Folks,
I suggest it's time for a developers meeting. The developer's behind
kannel have changed quite a bit recently and there's lots of new
people who stepped in to take over what Wapit has originally started.
However we have to pay attention that we dont mess it up and we have
to
I've asked for permission to use Zellsoft's premises (Copenhagen) and
got it (It's not a lot of space, but at least it is free..). I guess we
have place for 10-20 people. (How many active developers are there?). If
someone has an alternative, I am very open...
- persons who would like to
- important items to be discussed.
- Releases of kannel.
I you watch the users mailing list, you know that a lot of people is
still using the 1.0.3 version, not knowing the state it is in. A lot of
bugs have been found in this version, but was never corrected. Actually,
I think everybody
OK so everybody is for an at3.
Would the best approach be to copy the AT2 methodology ?
I have to say that any changes to pdu encoding, etc. would have to be done
in all three files, AT, AT2 and AT3.
I have again attatched my AT retry loging patch, which is small and
simple.
I ask that this be
