SMPP Submit_SM sender address

Hi Harald, We're trying out SMPP interconnection and found that for Submit_SM (aka MT-SMS) sender is always set to an extension of subscriber ID 1. Looking into the code, this happens because we set "sms->sender" to point to subscriber ID 1 in submit_to_sms() function in SMPP code: /* fill in the source address */ sms->sender = subscr_get_by_id(net, 1); sms->src.ton = submit->source_addr_ton; sms->src.npi = submit->source_addr_npi; strncpy(sms->src.addr, (char *)submit->source_addr, sizeof(sms->src.addr)-1); And then src.addr/ton/npi are ignored when we store to the SMS DB and only subscriber ID is stored: /* FIXME: correct validity period */ result = dbi_conn_queryf(conn, "INSERT INTO SMS " "(created, sender_id, receiver_id, valid_until, " "reply_path_req, status_rep_req, protocol_id, " "data_coding_scheme, ud_hdr_ind, dest_addr, " "user_data, text) VALUES " "(datetime('now'), %llu, %llu, %u, " "%u, %u, %u, %u, %u, %s, %s, %s)", sms->sender->id, sms->receiver ? sms->receiver->id : 0, validity_timestamp, sms->reply_path_req, sms->status_rep_req, sms->protocol_id, sms->data_coding_scheme, sms->ud_hdr_ind, q_daddr, q_udata, q_text); So when we read SMS back from the DB, sender address is taken from that subscriber. It seems that a solution is to store actual ton/npi/addr in the SMS DB instead of storing ID. Then we could set sms->sender to NULL and just ignore it. Is there anything wrong with this approach? Otherwise we'll work on a patch to implement that. PS What is the current policy about changing DB layouts - just increase SCHEMA_REVISION? -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио http://fairwaves.ru