rds,
> Franck
>
>
> From: Alexander Malysh On Behalf Of Alexander Malysh
> Sent: vendredi 28 juin 2019 09:43
> To: Alejandro Guerrieri
> Cc: Lamasuta, Franck, Vodafone Automotive ;
> devel@kannel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SMSC cluster
>
> Hi,
>
>
with current behavior).
What do you think?
Regards,
Franck
From: Alexander Malysh On Behalf Of Alexander Malysh
Sent: vendredi 28 juin 2019 09:43
To: Alejandro Guerrieri
Cc: Lamasuta, Franck, Vodafone Automotive ;
devel@kannel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SMSC cluster
Hi,
I’m agree with Alejandro
smsc-username which is (AFAIK) always the same with
> multiple binds.
>
> It is more flexible in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Franck
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Alejandro Guerrieri <mailto:alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: mercredi 26 juin 2
e flexible in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Franck
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alejandro Guerrieri
> *Sent:* mercredi 26 juin 2019 00:27
> *To:* Lamasuta, Franck, Vodafone Automotive
> *Cc:* devel@kannel.org
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] SMSC cluster
>
>
019 00:27
To: Lamasuta, Franck, Vodafone Automotive
Cc: devel@kannel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SMSC cluster
I'm curious why do you even need this patch? You could use the same smsc-id on
both and assign different smsc-admin-id values to manage each bind separately
(e.g. start/stop). If by any
I'm curious why do you even need this patch? You could use the same smsc-id
on both and assign different smsc-admin-id values to manage each bind
separately (e.g. start/stop). If by any reason you'd want to send over a
specific bind, you could use different allowed-smsc-id's as well.
Regards,
