Re: sendsms and wait-for-reply

Hi Kalle,

> Ah, very true. I do not know what I was thinking, maybe this idea that
> 'some operators do not support DLRs' made me think that these messages
> will not be gained either.. but I check of code confirmed that they
> are not linked, so the procedure you described sounds good.

That's true and that's why long time ago a small patch for CIMD driver was
provided to have an additional no-dlr option in the configuration file. It
was because operator even did not accept anything _about_ DLR. In such
case IMHO SMSC's reply "accepted" would sound reasonable to signal sendsms
about the "almost successful" delivery of SM.

regards,
Dziugas Baltrunas