Re: PATCH: Small bug with DLRs

Ok,

Slightly confused then, the SMSC rejected my message at submission,  
and so I should have got back a dlr_mask value of 16 (dec) in the DLR  
according to the documentation, but I got back 22 (dec). Maybe I  
jumped to the wrong conclusion seeing the DLR_SMSC_FAIL set to 0x16  
(22 dec) in the header file

#define	DLR_SUCCESS         0x01
#define	DLR_FAIL            0x02
#define	DLR_BUFFERED        0x04
#define	DLR_SMSC_SUCCESS    0x08
#define	DLR_SMSC_FAIL       0x16

But does that not strike you as a bit odd though that they all match  
the documentation with the exception of DLR_SMSC_FAIL, and looking at  
them if you were reading them as dec numbers not hex they would  
match. It really does look like a simple typo to me.

Anyway, if you figure out why I got 22 instead of 16 please let me know.

Regards

Ben

On 3 Apr 2007, at 14:35, Alexander Malysh wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> your patch is not correct. You will receive SMSC_FAIL or DLR_FAIL  
> depending
> on the dlr_mask you used. If you set dlr_mask to request SMSC_FAIL  
> then you
> will receive it if only DLR_FAIL requested then DLR_FAIL will be set.
>
> Ben Suffolk wrote:
>
>> Just noticed that when the SMSC rejects a message at submission the
>> dlr was set to 22 (0x16) not 16 (0x10). Just a bad define in the
>> header file.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ben
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>