Re: [PATCH] preliminary confirmed sendsms

Yes I supposed that was the reason... implementing some kind of
asynchronous processing (freeing the thread and processing the
reject/accept when it arrives) would be a lot more complicated and
DLR's already do that well.

I suppose the "accepted-rejected by SMSC" DLRs are accomplished by
setting a proper dlr-mask isnt't it? Anyone have tried this? Any
hints?

Regards,

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:57:59 +0300, Kalle Marjola <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 04:17, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
> > Well, I've just patched my 1.3.2 with this and so far it seems to work ok.
> >
> > I've checked trying to send messages without defining an smsc and I've got:
> >
> > "Not routable. Do not try again."
> >
> > What I'm missing is the capability to detect wrong numbers, ie. if I
> > try to send a message to "12345678" or "0000000" I've got an "0:
> > Accepted for delivery", but I think I need DLR's for that isn't it?
> >
> > Isn't there any way to detect that kind of errors without DLR's?
> > 
> Yes and no. What I understood from previous posts, these can be detected
> with these 'accepted/rejected by SMSC' "DLRs" (not real DLRs, i.e. work
> even when operator does not allow DLRs)
> 
> However, this patch does not wait for that data as it can be delayed
> lots more (queue inside SMSC driver etc.) - this will be the next patch
> and even then that would be optional as it could easily result in HTTP
> timeouts etc. (moreover, that patch is far more complicated because of
> split messages etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> --
> &Kalle Marjola ::: Development ::: Helsinki ::: Enpocket
> 
> 


-- 
Alejandro Guerrieri
Magicom
http://www.magicom-bcn.net/