Re: [PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

Hi Denis, 2010/12/17 Denis Kenzior denk...@gmail.com: Can I get a bit more of an explanation from you as to why the 'absent' validity period is better than hardcoding this to 24 hours? If there is an explicit validity period, it overrides the default validity period set by operator. I'd rather

Re: [PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

Hi Pekka, On 12/17/2010 07:29 AM, Pekka Pessi wrote: Hi Denis, 2010/12/17 Denis Kenzior denk...@gmail.com: Can I get a bit more of an explanation from you as to why the 'absent' validity period is better than hardcoding this to 24 hours? If there is an explicit validity period, it

Re: [PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

Hi Pekka, On 12/08/2010 03:57 PM, pekka.pe...@nokia.com wrote: From: Pekka Pessi pekka.pe...@nokia.com --- src/smsutil.c |6 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/smsutil.c b/src/smsutil.c index f4eee24..59faaf7 100644 --- a/src/smsutil.c +++

[PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

From: Pekka Pessi pekka.pe...@nokia.com --- src/smsutil.c |6 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/smsutil.c b/src/smsutil.c index f4eee24..59faaf7 100644 --- a/src/smsutil.c +++ b/src/smsutil.c @@ -3162,11 +3162,10 @@ GSList *sms_datagram_prepare(const