Re: (no subject)

Why do you assume that HTTP headers should be urlencoded? that is wrong
So why would kannel go for wrong behavior in parsing them? :)

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Ki,
>
> Just to experiment, I tried the following header:
>         X-Kannel-To: 413131315325424234+556666724243247
>
> And it causes the server to crash with the following message:
>         2003-04-14 18:21:44 [6] PANIC: gw/smsc/smpp_pdu.def:207: 
> smpp_pdu_pack: Assertion `octstr_len(p->destination_addr) < 21' failed.
>
> I was trying to get it to send to multiple recipients, and URLEncoded 
> the address, (thus the + sign), but apparently
> X-Kannel-To does not get UNUrlEncoded?
>
> I tried it again with the following header
>         X-Kannel-To: 413131315325424234 556666724243247
>
> And all worked as expected.
>
> Kannel 1.3.1 on Solaris
>
> Regards
> Jason