Paul,
No need to apologize as I greatly appreciate your reply. I want to add some
clarification on Syniverse's role in the message formatting. They are not
requiring us to have it any certain way, but they are taking us through the
certification process with Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, and many other North
American telecom companies. They are aware of the many different
specifications that these companies require and we have been pushing our mbuni
install to adhere to these so we can pass MMS between us and them. We weren't
sure if the unified prefix was mbuni's option for number modification or if one
currently exists. Our situation is an example of a-number and b-number
modifications that we may or may not need to make. Depending on the a and b
party phones and how they are setup, i.e. with 1xxx or xxx or +1xxx, we need to
be able to receive all three and modify the number to be in the +1xxx number
format. This is a pretty standard technology for most phone switches when
phone calls are routed out. We are handling this part with our own mail
script, of which we will gladly share with anyone in the community (but don't
make fun of us for how poorly our Perl is written :).
Unfortunately I am not a developer or I would gladly help write code. So far
we love it and really want to see it continue to succeed. We have been using
it for over two years for our MM1 and MM3 communications and now are getting
ready for a big implementation of MM4.
Paul, let me know what you think. I appreciate your help.
Matthew
Matthew Brown
Manager, Network Systems Administration
Revol
(216) 573.7030 office
(440) 341.0959 Revol line
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Kitandara on behalf of P. A. Bagyenda
Sent: Fri 12/21/2007 4:58 AM
To: Matthew Brown
Cc: users@mbuni.org
Subject: Re: [Users] Question about unified prefix
Hi Matthew,
Apologies for the delay in responding.
In theory, MM4 recipients should not need to look inside the message to
extract sender/receiver as this information is part of the SMTP transaction. In
fact methinks the MM4 receiver should NEVER look inside the packet to extract
sender/receiver because this information should be as received from the
original sender (save of course for Bcc fields). But, it would seem Syniverse
is doing that, because I believe the envelope data (what gets transposed over
the %t and %f) should already be normalised...
In short, I'd like to hear from others but my own view is that we should not
be mucking around with the message packet itself in core Mbuni as that would
change the message in a non-essential manner.
But I tend to write lots of nonsense towards the end of the year, so feel free
to offer corrections!
P.
On Dec 18, 2007, at 17:32, Matthew Brown wrote:
Paul,
I am sorry for my delay in replying. We have been going through the
off-net certification process with our provider, Syniverse Technologies, so we
can send MMS messages to the rest of the telecom world. In the meantime we put
some hacks in to get the numbers to display properly. Internally it does not
matter whether the number comes across as 10 digits, i.e. 4402221111, or with
11 digits, 14402221111, but when we send the MM4 communication to Syniverse we
must send it as +14402221111. I am hesitating to say that what you are
suggesting is what I need as I am still learning what should be expected from
Mbuni versus what I should be expected to do on my own.
It would be great for Mbuni to be able to see any destination number,
i.e. +1440, 1440, or 440, and be able to insure that all numbers going out MM4
are in the +1440. format. We wrote a script that gets called instead of the
sendmail.postfix command, takes the content and parses it, extracting out and
reformatting the From: and To: fields inside the message and rebuilds the mail
message with the correct number formatting. We add the +1 as a part of the
recipient address field to help this process.
send-mail-prog = /usr/local/bin/mmsmail '+1%t'
#send-mail-prog = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix -f '%f' '+1%t'
We are fine with handling all number modifications with an intermediary
script, but we don't want to neglect the rest of the Mbuni community in case
someone else has run into the same problem.
What do you think?
Matthew
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Bagyenda
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:59 PM
To: Matthew Brown
Cc: users@mbuni.org
Subject: Re: [Users] Question about unified prefix
Hello Matthew,
I've had a look and the problem you're facing seems to be related to
the fact that mbuni uses the normalized form for routing but does not modify it
within the received MMS. Hence what you're seeing on MM4. It's an easy change
though...
Please confirm that this is what you need.
On Dec 7, 2007 2:06 AM, Matthew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello All,
We have been using Mbuni for our internal MMS messaging for over a
couple of years now and it has worked great. We are beginning to work with an
"off-net" MMS provider. One of their requirements is to have the "to" address
field begin with "+1" to accept the message. All of our numbers are processed
internally with the 10 digit MIN/MDN and so all I need to do is add the "+1" to
any message I send to the MM4 communication. I have added the following to my
mms.conf:
group = mbuni
.
unified-prefix = "+1,1"
.
group = mmsproxy
.
allowed-prefix = +1
denied-prefix = ""
...
Here are the snippets from the log file. I have sanitized the "to"
number to be 222-222-2222, the home mmsc to be 1.1.1.1 and the remote mmsc to
be 1.1.1.2.
==> access.log <==
2007-12-06 17:57:40 Received MMS [INT:MM1] [ACT:] [MMSC:]
[from:1.1.1.1/TYPE=IPv4] [to:12222222222/TYPE=PLMN]
[msgid:mymmsc-qf1860.1.x172.38] [size=73056] [UA:kyok24qb] [MMBox:]
2007-12-06 17:57:59 Queued MMS [INT:MM4] [ACT:] [MMSC:1.1.1.2]
[from:1.1.1.1/TYPE=IPv4] [to:1222222222/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[msgid:mymmsc-qf1860.1.x172.38] [size=-1] [UA:] [MMBox:]
==> mmsc.log <==
2007-12-06 17:57:59 [8169] [4] INFO: Global Queue MMS Bill: >From
1.1.1.1/TYPE=IPv4, to_count=1, msgid=mymmsc-qf1860.1.x172.38, msgsize=73124:
returned=0.00
2007-12-06 17:57:59 [8169] [4] INFO: mmsc for "+12222222222" resolved
to: "1.1.1.2"
2007-12-06 17:57:59 [8169] [4] INFO: Queued Global Queue MMS Send: From
1.1.1.1/TYPE=IPv4, to 12222222222/TYPE=PLMN, msgsize=73124: err=(null)
You can see that the + is in the second mmsc.log entry but when it
passes it off to MM4 the + is not there.
Does anyone know the correct way to add a prefix to all messages routed
to the mmsproxy or what I am doing wrong with the current setup? Thank you in
advance.
Matthew
Matthew Brown
Manager, Network Systems Administration
Revol
(216) 573.7030 office
(440) 341.0959 Revol line
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@mbuni.org
http://lists.mbuni.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@mbuni.org
http://lists.mbuni.org/mailman/listinfo/users
