fre, 11 03 2005 kl. 12:28 +0300, skrev Paul Bagyenda: > I tend to disagree with this approach. mmsproxy should remain for the > mm1 interface alone.
Ok. I see your point. > You should build a different interface which > receives SOAP or EAIF (I think both should be done right off and > distinguished by called URL). It then does the VAS user authentication, > and creates an MMS message which it queues to the global queue. > Similarly, global sender should be updated to route messages to > SOAP/EAIF recipients based on short number (or something), if the > recipient is not local etc. Finally we would need config directives for > VAS providers: name, user/pass (required for auth), short code (or > similar), flags, URL (which we use for sending incoming to them). Right. > Lets exhaust the discussion here or offline before you make any changes. Sure. Good thing I hadn't started yet. :-) So, you think I should create a whole new binary for this, or should we perhaps just use a different URL for it and keep it in mmsproxy, but separate from the mm1 stuff? I'm not sure what I think about this.. Both have benifits. -- SÃren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@mbuni.org http://mbuni.org/mailman/listinfo/users_mbuni.org
