Stipe Tolj <st 'at' tolj.org> writes: > Alexander Malysh wrote: > > P.S. I find MNC's solution acceptable too but it need more user > > configuration. > > yep, I like the "idea" in it's base too, since it "assumes" that > Kannel does has it's own MSISDN format scheme, which we should have > actually. > > But I dislike the fact that user's may "forget" to use the > unified-prefix within the smsc groups and also that they are "not > aware" of the fact they would need one.
We could totally say that in next version of Kannel, not specifying a unified-prefix in an smsc group gives a startup error. More features usually mean more configuration/complexity in software, this is acceptable (as long as we try to keep it as simple/logical as possible). We can also say that it is not a startup error, but it would give a big bold warning when receiving a DLR if it's missing - after all, not everyone wants/needs/can receive DLRs. > So, I'd go first for Alex's way in stripping away everything that > seems logically to be country code or/and prefix, reducing the > probability that the same base MSISDN number is transported via the > same smsc-id in the same timestamp very drastically for various > country/network code variations. > > This is still no perfect solution IMO. Since it's still not fully fail safe. The Kannel group has been very reluctant in half-fixing this problem over the past 4 years (look at the large number of submitted patches that were refused). I'd find surprising that the policy would change now :) I'm very much in favor of a complete/full solution. -- Guillaume Cottenceau
