I've just got a total another idea, because I really don't like that
EXEC-stuff for a productive enviroment. i think it's to risky and
unstable.
Does the Patent say anything about HTTPS? I mean HTTPS is not HTTP.
And if the patent cover this to, why not simply route your traffic
through a ssh-tunnel? You can setup this in seconds and "these guys"
even helped you with their claim to secure your systems. Man, I should
a patent this idea ;-)
Regards
Falko
Am 13.02.2009 um 03:23 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
Just an ounce of care. People can inject malicious code in the
arguments, i.e. Sender = "1234;rm -rf ." that unless carefully
quoted can lead to disaster.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "seikath" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate protocol?
it ups to the handler you call with exec, the system resources you
posses ...
in case you dont experience high loads exec is acceptable as short
term solution
otherwise, use sqlbox, or, what about XML POST ?:)
i do parallel processing of MO traffic with invoking php script
from kernel inotify.h
in short when xml file is being moved to a directory, i spawn php
script like this one
/usr/bin/nohup ${php} ${loopScript} ${key} PAYMENT ${filename} &
so far i have no issues, but for this particular service the max
load is like
40 MO messages in same time, which is nothing.
i measure the load level before the each new process start ...
in case you have high load peaks,
1. make sure you know what will happen when the execution of the
php scrip fails.
2. make sure you control the level of the box load ... do not let
kannel crash the box :)
with processes the box cant handle.
last thing - do not let these people change your way of work ...
well its your call anyway :)
cheers
David wrote:
Thanks!
Does anybody know if EXEC can handle large loads if we spawn new
processes (with the & at the end of the command?) this seems to
be our
short term solution
thanks
--- On *Thu, 2/12/09, Falko Ziemann /<[email protected]>/* wrote:
From: Falko Ziemann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: HELP! Patent claim! Can we use an alternate
protocol?
To: [email protected]
Cc: "seikath" <[email protected]>, "[email protected] User"
<[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 5:02 PM
Uhh, found a even better one here:
http://www.cellitmarketing.com/blog/the-tcs-patent-dispute-cellits-viewpoint/
"As many of you know, TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. is
currently
pursuing legal actions against many players in the mobile space."
(bla bla)
"It is Cellit’s belief this patent claim is without merit.
Freely available software, namely Kannel (available at
Kannel.org),
enables this exact type of interaction (conversion of MOs into
web
requests) and has been available since 1999. While I am not a
lawyer, it is my belief the existence of Kannel in 1999
constitutes
“prior art” and thus nullifies TCS’s 2000 and 2005 patent
claims."
Am 12.02.2009 um 23:56 schrieb Falko Ziemann:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200804/
ai_n25346966
"The patent describes a means for triggering an Internet
informational query or search using a simple text message
originated from a cell phone or mobile device, and is widely
used
today for two-way premium messaging services."
Well, I didn't read the whole patent, but this really sounds
like
they should sue Google mobile (I would really love to see this),
not you...
Regards
Falko
Am 12.02.2009 um 23:31 schrieb seikath:
Hi David,
Falko gave the solution - use sqlbox for internal
communication.
Anyway, I'd love to know more of this like patent ID etc.
In short, I have my doubts that they will claim violation.
In short you do use http as internal communication INSIDE
your boxes.
HTTP is NOT used to receive MO traffic from mobile devices.
The SMPP/OtherProtocols are used to communicate with mobile
operators SMSC.
the SMPP protocol DOES not send short text messages at all ..:)
These people claims sound not serious to me at all.
So relax a bit :)
hint: the exec module has its issues with escaping non usual
characters...
I could be wrong, but they have to prove something non even
existing ...
cheers
David wrote:
Hello,
Us users of SMS Shortcodes are getting hit in the US for
violating a
patent by TCS Inc. The patent claims to cover:
"A gateway, comprising: a first communication path to accept
a short
message from a mobile device; a translation module to insert
said short
message into an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) message;
a second
communication path to push said HTTP message to at least one
Universal
Resource Locator (URL); and a return communication path to
receive a
return message relating to said HTTP message."
The patent goes on to mention a whole bunch of stuff, ie,
using HTTP
POST to send the http message, etc.
I just got out of a meeting with my lawyer. He says, the only
way to
get around this is to NOT use HTTP.
Over the weekend, I tried to use the sms-service using EXEC
instead of
GET-URL, which worked fine... and then the server crashed...
i'm
guessing too many spawned processes?
My question to you all is: how can we NOT use HTTP but have
the
same
end result? ideally, it would use a command-line exec, but
push
it into
a waiting server, instead of spawning a new thread. Does
anybody have
any ideas on how to do this?
Thank you very much,
David
