Re: [PATCH] Re: Problems with the handling of DLR's / SMPP

On Tuesday 26 August 2003 21:28, Ian Cass wrote:
> Alexander Malysh wrote:
> > Yep, I know this too. But it is not spec conform. If the client
> > doesn't request intermediately dlr's then smpp server should not send
> > these (in kannel case those were missinterpreted) and second point: I
> > have not found in smpp spec. 'ACKED' status (this status called
> > ACCEPTD, see smpp 3.4 issue 1.2 page 168).
>
> True. But in the same section it says...
>
> "The format for this Delivery Receipt message is SMSC vendor specific but
> following is a typical example of Delivery Receipt report."

it would be much easier to live, if all would adhere to the suggestions ;) And 
also is this the lack in smpp 3.4 and 5.0 spec...

>
> A prime example of SMPP spec vagueness, specifications that allow for the
> vendor to legitimately change things about. Sigh :/
>
> In spite of this, I tried to keep our interface as 'typical' a real SMSC as
> possible when I wrote it, whilst at the same time making some of our more
> advanced features available.

PS: I will remove the comments about mblox from a patch which will be 
commited.

-- 
Best regards / Mit besten Grüßen aus Düsseldorf

Dipl.-Ing.
Alexander Malysh
___________________________________________

Centrium GmbH
Vogelsanger Weg 80
40470 Düsseldorf

Fon: +49 (0211) 74 84 51 80
Fax: +49 (0211) 277 49 109

email: a.malysh at centrium.de
web: www.centrium.de
msn: olek2002 at hotmail.com
icq: 98063111
___________________________________________

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html