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
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 not not
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.
For MO, we
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
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]
What syntax are you using for this field and is it operator specific ?
T-Mobile Germany, at least, are using this field.
--
Ian Cass
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 ?
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]
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 specific ?
AFAIS,
