Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-29 Thread Alexander Malysh
On Wednesday 29 October 2003 16:08, Arne K. Haaje wrote: > tirsdag 28. oktober 2003, 14:20, skrev Alexander Malysh: > > Hi, > > > > I'm -1 for change of shared.c... sorry but it will not work for at least > > smpp module... > > Why? because for smpp module service_type should be sent for every sms

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-29 Thread Arne K. Haaje
tirsdag 28. oktober 2003, 14:20, skrev Alexander Malysh: > Hi, > > I'm -1 for change of shared.c... sorry but it will not work for at least > smpp module... Why? Now that Kannel has support for billing, there should be a policy of how to handle this problem of billing mulitpart messages. As impl

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-28 Thread Alexander Malysh
Hi, I'm -1 for change of shared.c... sorry but it will not work for at least smpp module... CIMD2 patch look good, but see below ... Unfortunately we don't have any cimd connections there so can't test it :( @@ -2034,11 +2046,14 @@ default: code = 0; } + if (st_ecode >

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-28 Thread Arne K. Haaje
torsdag 16. oktober 2003, 18:33, skrev Stipe Tolj: > Hi list, > > I have added a 'binfo' to the Msg sms structure to pass arbitrary > billing identifier/information for MT and MO messages. > > In EMI2 we forward the XSer 0c field and in SMPP we forward the > service_type from the deliver_sm. > > Fo

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-24 Thread Stefan Cars
Hi! I have made a patch for CIMD2 where i'm using the tariff field for this (P_TARIFF_CLASS (64)) for MTs, for MOs I have no idea what field to use since the CIMD2s we have been in contact with do not provide this for MOs... Anyway I have a patch that sets the tariff field according to your binfo

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-20 Thread Stipe Tolj
> I think it's nice if we could specify billing info using > X-Kannel-BInfo header from sms-service. > > I'm not sure about smsc_http.c ... is that correct? > > Diff output from latest cvs attached. definetly +1. Applied to cvs. Thanks a lot. Stipe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-18 Thread adi
Stipe, I think it's nice if we could specify billing info using X-Kannel-BInfo header from sms-service. I'm not sure about smsc_http.c ... is that correct? Diff output from latest cvs attached. Regards, P.Y. Adi Prasaja Index: gw/smsbox.c ==

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-17 Thread Stipe Tolj
Paul Keogh wrote: > > Hi Stipe, > > In the smsbox/static Octstr *smsbox_req_handle() function, the > binfo argument is passed in but I can't see any assignment of > it into the Msg sms struct - did you miss this in the CVS update ? yep... shame on me... fixing in cvs, sorry. Stipe mailto:[EMAI

RE: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-17 Thread Paul Keogh
Hi Stipe, In the smsbox/static Octstr *smsbox_req_handle() function, the binfo argument is passed in but I can't see any assignment of it into the Msg sms struct - did you miss this in the CVS update ?

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-17 Thread Stipe Tolj
Ian Cass wrote: > > > What syntax are you using for this field and is it operator specific ? > > T-Mobile Germany, at least, are using this field. correct. In EMI 4.0 there is at least the XSer 0c field for such purpose. In SMPP 3.4 there is not such thing explicetly, but some vendors (real-life

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-17 Thread Ian Cass
> What syntax are you using for this field and is it operator specific ? T-Mobile Germany, at least, are using this field. -- Ian Cass

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-16 Thread Stipe Tolj
> What syntax are you using for this field and is it operator specific ? Kannel does not care about syntax/semantic. The XSer field is moved to msg->sms.binfo in case of MO and in case of MT it checks only that the field provided in msg->sms.binfo is off non-odd length to fit the XSer rules. Stip

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-16 Thread Stipe Tolj
Hi Paul, Paul Keogh wrote: > > > In EMI2 we forward the XSer 0c field and in SMPP we forward the > > service_type from the deliver_sm. > > > > The EMI-UCP specification suggests that this field is reserved for > future use. > > What syntax are you using for this field and is it operator specifi

RE: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-16 Thread Paul Keogh
> In EMI2 we forward the XSer 0c field and in SMPP we forward the > service_type from the deliver_sm. > The EMI-UCP specification suggests that this field is reserved for future use. What syntax are you using for this field and is it operator specific ?

Re: [FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-16 Thread Stipe Tolj
> For MO, we have now a '%B' escape code for the sms-service to pass > this binfo field into any HTTP requests and for MT we have a 'binfo' > CGI variable in the sendsms interface. BTW, both have been documented in the user's guide. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

[FYI] billing identifier/information proxying

2003-10-16 Thread Stipe Tolj
Hi list, I have added a 'binfo' to the Msg sms structure to pass arbitrary billing identifier/information for MT and MO messages. In EMI2 we forward the XSer 0c field and in SMPP we forward the service_type from the deliver_sm. For MO, we have now a '%B' escape code for the sms-service to pass