> > > > This isn't Kannel's decision to make; this is data set by the > end user's > telephone, which may have requirements neither you nor I are > (or could > be) aware of. The analogy to a case-insensitive filesystem > namespace is > quite fitting if you think about it carefully. > > I did look at alt-dcs, and I consider it a kludge. Sorry. >
You're absolutely right. I've had an explicit DCS value in the SMS Msg struct for ages. It's required because there are just too many SMSCs, MARs, front-ends and some devices that don't implement DCS according to the specs. The Kannel code for DCS is correct; its just inadequete in the face of so many other broken implementations - for example I have an SMSC link to an operator that will only accept an MT DCS value of 0 regardless of any other message characteristics and this is an SMPP protocol link. Go figure.
