Re: [PATCH] add support of smsc-id for smpp-tlv group

This way it is broken. Reply-To works. Reply-All doesn't. My mailer is MS Outlook. All lists use To: <person> and Cc: <list> on Reply All. Everybody knows to use Reply-All, not Reply with lists. I don't know of any flame wars, it just stopped working without notice a couple of months ago.

Do you think that these changes stop anyone who wants to from sending in a personnal mail? The only thing they manage to do is force people who are using the list correctly to manually edit their headers with whatever mistakes that causes. Revert and ask before changing.
If anyone uses Reply, instead of Reply-All he is bounced back privately. 

Nikos
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alexander Malysh 
  To: Development mailing list 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 5:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support of smsc-id for smpp-tlv group




  Am 02.09.2009 um 16:07 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:


    Self-answering:


    From: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support of smsc-id for smpp-tlv group

    Date: 2 de septiembre de 2009 16:03:20 GMT+02:00

    To: [email protected]
    Reply-To: [email protected]


    It must be mailman adding it. My personal opinion is to leave Reply-To alone and using reply-to-all (that was mailman's policy time ago, they recommended leaving the header untouched).


  yes, mailman rewrite reply-to header now because too many people just don't know reply-to-all button ;)
  we have had issues that people reply but reply doesn't go list and we have then not completed solutions on the list.
  therefore it's better to force reply-to behavior (IMHO).




    Again, just my opinion, lots of people favor setting the reply-to to the list itself and I do not intend to start yet-another-flame-war on the subject :)


  I think it's logically that all replies go to the list?




    Regards,

    --
    Alejandro Guerrieri
    [email protected]






    On 02/09/2009, at 16:03, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:


      Nikos,


      I've received your email and the headers are:


      From: [email protected]
      Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support of smsc-id for smpp-tlv group

      Date: 2 de septiembre de 2009 15:48:20 GMT+02:00

      To: [email protected]
      Cc: [email protected]
      Reply-To: [email protected]


      Is your "Reply-To" configured to the devel list, or that header was added by mailman?


      The debate about what's the proper approach to reply-to is far from being settled:


      http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html


      Anyway, reply-to-all works for me on devel and users lists, using Mail.app and GMail respectively, I don't know what's exactly your problem with it?


      Regards,
      --
      Alejandro Guerrieri
      [email protected]






      On 02/09/2009, at 15:48, Nikos Balkanas wrote:


        Hi Alex,

        Your comment at that point could have been more clear:
        /* The default smsc-id is set to "def;ault" since it is an illegal smsc-id and cannot be configured by a user */

        And please reply to my latest mail in the thread, otherwise you are quoting out of context.

        With respect to lists:

        > I fixed Reply-To already. And this is you that make it don't work. Please use reply to all or just reply and reply to
        > the devel list instead of private.

        What is this? I use private? You are mistaken. I only use Reply-All.  I make it not to work? I don't think so. I don't have any problems with any of the other lists that I am subscribing.

        But with your lists in the field To: I get:

        Users mailing list <[email protected]>; Users mailing list <[email protected]>

        Nothing in the Cc:

        Old Headers:

        To: Nikos Balkanas <[email protected]>
        Cc: Development mailing list <[email protected]>

        This also takes care of [email protected]

        New headers:

        To: Users mailing list <[email protected]>
        Reply-To: Users mailing list <[email protected]>

        Your lists will now only work with Reply-To. When you change default behaviour you confuse the hell out of people that are using the list correctly.

        Please revert to old configuration,
        Nikos
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Alexander Malysh
          To: Nikos Balkanas
          Cc: Development mailing list
          Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:57 PM
          Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support of smsc-id for smpp-tlv group




          Am 02.09.2009 um 12:33 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:


            Yes, but octstr_split can return a single member list, same way it would handle single smsc-ids configured by the user. I have no reading problems, and your comment doesn't explain why you have to use a list of smscs as your default, just that ';' can be used as list seperator since it is not allowed in the smsc-id name.


          ; used in the middle of default smsc-id because ; can't be there in the smsc-id configured by user
          because this is split char and always skipped. Imagine user defines smsc-id=def;ault What we get after octstr_split(..., octstr_imm(";"))?
          Yes we get list with def and ault but never def;ault.


          Hope this is clear now?



            In terms of efficiency i imagine it would take twice as much time to process a list of 2, than a list of one. Plus it doesn't look good.


          see above, this is _not_ a list!



            PS: Can you please fix the Reply-To field in the lists (users+devel)? For the past 2 months they don't work right.


          I fixed Reply-To already. And this is you that make it don't work. Please use reply to all or just reply and reply to the devel list instead of private.
          And please don't use [email protected] address. This is wrong! Please use [email protected].


          To clarify: [email protected] and [email protected] set Reply-To to mailing list. So we can help people avoid reply to person but not to list.



            BR,
            Nikos
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Alexander Malysh
              To: Development mailing list
              Cc: Nikos Balkanas
              Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:27 PM
              Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support of smsc-id for smpp-tlv group


              Hi,


              Am 02.09.2009 um 10:13 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:


                Hi Alex,

                Looks good. Some typos:

                Userguide:

                string <-> stringr
                ...this TLV valid <-> ...this TLV is valid(twice).



              fixed in my version...



                gw/smsc/smpp_pdu.c: 69

                +#define DEFAULT_SMSC_ID "def;ault"

                Is this right? Did you mean "default"?



              seems you read only even rows? :)
              /* we use ; in the middle because ; is split char in smsc-id and can'be in the smsc-id */
              #define DEFAULT_SMSC_ID "def;ault"





                BR,
                Nikos

                ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]>
                To: "Development mailing list" <[email protected]>
                Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:58 AM
                Subject: [PATCH] add support of smsc-id for smpp-tlv group



                  Hi list,



                  seems I was to lazy and didn't implement smsc-id support for smpp-tlv

                  group :)

                  Attached is patch that corrects this.



                  The rule to look for smpp-tlv group is as follows:

                  1) by start we put smpp-tlv to smsc-id specific Dict if none given to

                  default smsc-id.

                      smsc-id may be a list splitted by ;

                  2) then if we need tlv by name/tag we look first for specific smsc-id

                  Dict and if tlv

                      not found for default smsc-id



                  Comments are welcome.



                  Thanks,

                  Alexander Malysh







                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------