Ok, silly diff errors aside (I wasn't including dlr_p.h :P), here's the new patches also changing the error code format as Alex suggested.
kannel-dlr-meta-data.diff
Description: Binary data
kannel-dlr-command-status.diff
Description: Binary data
Userguide patch coming later.Just a few more ideas
Hi Alex,
first patch seems still broken:
+dlr->meta_data = (msg->sms.meta_data ? octstr_duplicate(msg-
>sms.meta_data) : octstr_create(""));
we don't have meta_data in dlr struct. otherwise +1
second patch:
+if (msg->sms.meta_data == NULL)
+msg->sms.meta_data =
Oh, I see, I've attached the ~ backup file from vim. This are the right files, just in case:
kannel-dlr-command-status.diff
Description: Binary data
kannel-dlr-meta-data.diff
Description: Binary data
--Alejandro Guerrieriaguerri...@kannel.org On 03/09/2009, at 21:06, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:O
Oh, that must have filtered into the patch. Weird :P
Sorry, it's safe to remove it.
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerri...@kannel.org
On 03/09/2009, at 20:56, Gustavo Mohme C. wrote:
Hi Alejandro,
I get this error after applying your patch.
gw/dlr.c: In function ‘dlr_add’:
gw/dlr.c:352
Hi Alejandro,
I get this error after applying your patch.
gw/dlr.c: In function ‘dlr_add’:
> gw/dlr.c:352: error: ‘struct dlr_entry’ has no member named ‘meta_data’
> make: *** [gw/dlr.o] Error 1
>
After editing /gw/dlr_p.h and adding meta_data to the struct dlr_entry, it
compiled with no complai
You only need to define it if:
1. You want to pass it as a parameter on sendsms.
2. It comes from an SMSC, so it doesn't really have a "name", only an
address, so you need to "name it".
In this particular case, since the meta-data value is defined on it's
way back to you, it will be availa
Sorry Alex,
#1 You know that better than me. No.
One more question. Is meta-data available always or you need to first define
tlvs? This reflects to command-status availability.
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: "Alejandro Guerrieri"
To: "Nikos Balkanas"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, Septem
For #1, does any other smscs implement meta-data already?
For #2, command_status is an smpp specific parameter, it's meaningless
on other smscs.
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerri...@kannel.org
On 03/09/2009, at 20:21, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi Alex,
Looks good, but should it be lim
Hi Alex,
Looks good, but should it be limited only to smpp? What about other smscs?
BR,
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: "Alejandro Guerrieri"
To: "Kannel Devel"
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:39 AM
Subject: [PATCH] Pass meta-data from message to dlrs
Hi,
This is a set of
Gustavo,
No, that wouldn't work.
In fact, you don't need to pass the value on the url. You need to pass
the dlr-url with the %D parameter and kannel will get you back the ?
smpp?dlr_status=X part on the dlr that is created when the carrier
accepts (or rejects) your submit_sm.
In other wor
Hi Alejandro,
This is great. It was exactly what we need. I have one question though: what
if we need to "watch" for several command-status values, each one meaning a
different thing(predefined by the SMSC of course). Would it be valid to call
the url in this way?
?smpp?my_own_field=1234&dlr_status
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:44:53PM +0200, Donald Jackson wrote:
> Yay its working again! :)
Yes, nice. :)
Damián.
> 2009/9/3 Nikos Balkanas
>
> > I was the only one to report it and old enough to notice the change. I
> > received a few personnal emails from the list, blaming it as accident
Yay its working again! :)
2009/9/3 Nikos Balkanas
> I was the only one to report it and old enough to notice the change. I
> received a few personnal emails from the list, blaming it as accident caused
> by list behaviour. Outlook (express and regular) are very common clients,
> and it wasn't a
I was the only one to report it and old enough to notice the change. I received
a few personnal emails from the list, blaming it as accident caused by list
behaviour. Outlook (express and regular) are very common clients, and it wasn't
an individual problem. All other lists work for me.
BR,
Nik
Ok, you are the one who find it wrong but OK I changed it back.
Am 03.09.2009 um 11:14 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
Hi Alex,
The only reason you see a Cc: is because I add it manually. Mailman
adds the Reply-To field, and when I use from my Outlook,
I get:
To: Development mailing list; Devel
Hi Alex,
The only reason you see a Cc: is because I add it manually. Mailman adds the
Reply-To field, and when I use from my Outlook, I get:
To: Development mailing list; Development mailing list
Cc:
which is clearly wrong.
Nikos
- Original Message -
From: Alejandro Guerrieri
This way it is broken. Reply-To works. Reply-All doesn't. My mailer is MS
Outlook. All lists use To: and Cc: 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 t
Hi,
This is a set of two patches, though they're both very simple and
could have been mixed, I've preferred to split to honor the rule of
not mixing features in a single patch.
Patch #1, kannel-drl-meta-data.diff allows meta-data to be passed when
sending a message to come back into the "
18 matches
Mail list logo
