On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 12:04, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> This is true that SMPP spec don't define DLR format but give only
> recommendation but this recommendation was adapted
> by 99% SMSC maker and is quasi standard. If someone think that he
> can ignore such fact we will ignore this SMSC maker
> a
oops, wrong date 27.10.2009 instead of 23.10.2009
Alexander Malysh schrieb:
Hello all,
please be aware that kannel.org machine will be down on Tuesday
27.10.2009 from 10:00 CEST till appr. 21:00 CEST due to the move
to new data centre.
Thanks for understanding,
Alexander Malysh
Hello all,
please be aware that kannel.org machine will be down on Tuesday
23.10.2009 from 10:00 CEST till appr. 21:00 CEST due to the move
to new data centre.
Thanks for understanding,
Alexander Malysh
This is true that SMPP spec don't define DLR format but give only
recommendation but this recommendation was adapted
by 99% SMSC maker and is quasi standard. If someone think that he can
ignore such fact we will ignore this SMSC maker
and user who connecting such SMSC have to ask SMSC operator/
Unfortunately mail archives list only first few mails. Many experienced
contributors, like Alejandro, Milan and Seikath, hold the opinnion that this
recommendation is an example, not an SMPP spec, and therefore more flexible. I
myself consider it more strictly, as a spec.
However, no matter ho
Hi Nikos,
ok got it...
We have such discussions many times already and we always got to
decision that kannel can't and should't
support things that are not standard except it easy to integrate and
has no impact on the code readability,
security etc.
I don't think we have to patch DLR parsi
