Re: Malformed addr for Incoming short code

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 20:10 +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:

> But this brings us up again to the point "do we hence support protocol 
> misbehaviours?". The answer SHOULD be no. But it's the same answer for the 
> question "should we allow to much individual patching and hence branch 
> diversification".
> 
> Ideas, comments welcome.
> 
I'm a bit late here (been away etc.) but my opinion on these is that as
it is often very difficult or even impossible to say to operator that
their SMSC works badly (yes, I have been there several times) I would
write code in Kannel and then put it behind configuration variable
(accept-bad-...) - and that in main trunk instead of branches.

There was this 'alt-charset' thing long time ago in Kannel. We cannot
change the world always. The answer should be no, but I prefer to choose
flexibility over banging my head against the wall.

And yes I know the implications, and thus such code should be very well
commented in the code. 


-- 
&Kalle Marjola :: EME Development :: Enpocket Inc. Helsinki Finland