Hi, all.
+1 from me
Just one comment.
This patch will be good as far as no any header with special treatment
for No-value.
We unpack fields in wsp_unpack_well_known_field().
I checked that in current specs no any header with special hanling for
No-value. But if it will be added, than this patch is
Hi,
Great work!
Definitly +1 for this approach.
Draft tests seems to works.
Alexander Malysh wrote:
Hello together,
please find attached patch that implements http server client idle
timeout. In order to efficient handle timeouts and don't start yet another
thread we use already available fdset's
Hi!
Here is the example:
I sent:
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789morethan160bytes
like:
Hi Marcus,
Marcus Schmöger wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know about the current status of WTLS integration into
Kannel.
The info on the website is somewhate ambiguous about this.
At http://www.kannel.org/addons.shtml one of the three addons (the one
from 3ui) is not available anymore.
It is still
Hi list,
any crypto gurus arround who are willing to pick up the WTLS code for review and
adding the kwtls (external add-on module) to the existing code?
See Mantis bug#038 and http://www.kannel.org/download/wtls/ for more details on
the WTLS stack.
I'd like to see this getting going to
Alexander Malysh wrote:
Hi together,
attched you can find a patch that change behaviour in communication thread
creation. With this patch threads are created only _after_ successful
accept and so eliminate possible DOS (IMHO: it's unwise to popup thread
before check whether this box
Stefan Radman wrote:
Hi,
I've submitted a bug to the Mantis system and followed up with a patch
(attached to the bug).
Can someone review the patch and see if it's acceptable?
Alex seems to be very busy ;-)
All the necessary info is in the bug track.
commited to cvs, in slightly reduced form.
Dear Kannel Developers:
I've written about this before, but I thought I would bring it up again
because I hate patching.
Many SMSC's are starting to use the optional SMPP parameters for
information like billing issues, carrier failures, etc. Kannel really
doesn't allow for this -- it detects the
I'm +1 for a)! without reviewing the code, but from the semantical
perspective.
AFAIK, this has yet not been commited to cvs, right?
Nope, I just digged it out..
I can commit it to CVS (change things commented when I last time sent it
out) right now..
Kalle, what is the consensus about
