|
access log format
Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people
from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have
moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have
a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could
cost us dear.
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access log format to be whatever you like.
Regards, On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could cost us dear.
<alok.vcf>
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly
have a custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes
there. Mostly I have figured them out but, I fail to understand some
other entries which I have mentioned below as also I want to know more
such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns
such as "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not
be picked up and hence we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
Entries I cannot figure out:
[1]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:48425955-1cad-4fe3-8867-bb56fc0bd685] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A34383633636164632D633162322D346239662D623335382D623739386336633638356436207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323033303720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323033313220737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DC0901]
[2]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:eed80f6d-3d78-4140-a556-dbb59a856d8f] [flags:-1:0:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:id:0f22f6f9-8faf-4290-94c1-ce451fa18e21 sub:000 dlvrd:001
submit date:090918120227 done date:090918120242 stat:REJECTD err:000
text:] [udh:6:050003DB0801]
[3]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g73] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:a935aaad-b36c-4e42-8fee-d8e1f03571bf] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A66363666323135382D333732352D343337652D616137312D633763333161633234366665207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323337353720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323338323520737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DD0901]
The first entry appears to be a normal MT, why then it is named
"Receive SMS" instead of "Sent SMS" ? The second entry though it has
the same event "Receive SMS" appears to be a DLR. Again the 3 rd entry
seems to be a notmal MT message. I tried to make sense of the flags but
to no use.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access log format
to be whatever you like.
Regards,
On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people
from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have
moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have
a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could
cost us dear.
<alok.vcf>
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Alok,
Which version are specifically using to do this tests? CVS? Date?
Maybe you have a routing issue and messages are being re-injected? Or, if you're using 1.4.3 or an old CVS, intermediate DLR's would be seen as MO's as well.
Regards, On 18/09/2009, at 12:48, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries which I have mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
Entries I cannot figure out:
[1]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:48425955-1cad-4fe3-8867-bb56fc0bd685] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:69643A34383633636164632D633162322D346239662D623335382D623739386336633638356436207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323033303720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323033313220737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A] [udh:6:050003DC0901]
[2]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:eed80f6d-3d78-4140-a556-dbb59a856d8f] [flags:-1:0:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:id:0f22f6f9-8faf-4290-94c1-ce451fa18e21 sub:000 dlvrd:001 submit date:090918120227 done date:090918120242 stat:REJECTD err:000 text:] [udh:6:050003DB0801]
[3]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g73] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:a935aaad-b36c-4e42-8fee-d8e1f03571bf] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:69643A66363666323135382D333732352D343337652D616137312D633763333161633234366665207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323337353720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323338323520737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A] [udh:6:050003DD0901]
The first entry appears to be a normal MT, why then it is named "Receive SMS" instead of "Sent SMS" ? The second entry though it has the same event "Receive SMS" appears to be a DLR. Again the 3 rd entry seems to be a notmal MT message. I tried to make sense of the flags but to no use.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access log format to be whatever you like.
Regards, On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could cost us dear.
<alok.vcf> <alok.vcf>
|
|
Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a
> custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/
> "FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have
> figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries which I have
> mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
>
> Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as
> "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging
> has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence
> we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi Alenjandro,
I had mentioned about the version in my first mail. It is Kannel -
1.5.0.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Alok,
Which version are specifically using to do this tests? CVS? Date?
Maybe you have a routing issue and messages are being
re-injected? Or, if you're using 1.4.3 or an old CVS, intermediate
DLR's would be seen as MO's as well.
Regards,
On 18/09/2009, at 12:48, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly
have a custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes
there. Mostly I have figured them out but, I fail to understand some
other entries which I have mentioned below as also I want to know more
such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns
such as "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not
be picked up and hence we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
Entries I cannot figure out:
[1]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:48425955-1cad-4fe3-8867-bb56fc0bd685] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A34383633636164632D633162322D346239662D623335382D623739386336633638356436207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323033303720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323033313220737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DC0901]
[2]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:eed80f6d-3d78-4140-a556-dbb59a856d8f] [flags:-1:0:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:id:0f22f6f9-8faf-4290-94c1-ce451fa18e21 sub:000 dlvrd:001
submit date:090918120227 done date:090918120242 stat:REJECTD err:000
text:] [udh:6:050003DB0801]
[3]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g73] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:a935aaad-b36c-4e42-8fee-d8e1f03571bf] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A66363666323135382D333732352D343337652D616137312D633763333161633234366665207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323337353720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323338323520737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DD0901]
The first entry appears to be a normal MT, why then it is named
"Receive SMS" instead of "Sent SMS" ? The second entry though it has
the same event "Receive SMS" appears to be a DLR. Again the 3 rd entry
seems to be a notmal MT message. I tried to make sense of the flags but
to no use.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access log
format to be whatever you like.
Regards,
On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people
from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have
moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have
a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could
cost us dear.
<alok.vcf>
<alok.vcf>
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a
custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have
figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries which I have
mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging
has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence
we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
at Kannel logs?
> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>
> Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a
> custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/
> "FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have
> figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries which I have
> mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
>
> Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as
> "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging
> has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence
> we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
>
>
> I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
> made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
> from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
> need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
>
>
>
>
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi,
Yes, as mentioned previously we need to parse these records to get them
to the db. Over which we can then send various queries.
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
at Kannel logs?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a
custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have
figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries which I have
mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging
has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence
we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi,
Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the DB much
more information about the original message than can be obtained through the
DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
If anyone has reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was
unintentional.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillaume Cottenceau" < gc@...>
To: "Alok Vaidya" < alok@...>
Cc: < devel@...>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: access log format
> Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry I didn't get you.
>
> Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
> at Kannel logs?
>
>> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>>
>> Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can
>> certainly have a
>> custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
>> like "Sent SMS"/
>> "FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there.
>> Mostly I have
>> figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries
>> which I have
>> mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
>>
>> Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses
>> patterns such as
>> "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
>> event logging
>> has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be
>> picked up and hence
>> we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
>>
>>
>> I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
>> made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
>> from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
>> need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Guillaume Cottenceau
>
|
|
Re: access log format
Yeah, I've read that, but considering that latest stable is 1.4.3 and 1.5.0 is still being planned, I don't know what you're talking about...
Are you talking about CVS HEAD? Then, what's the timestamp of your checked out version? On 18/09/2009, at 13:51, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi Alenjandro,
I had mentioned about the version in my first mail. It is Kannel - 1.5.0.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: Alok,
Which version are specifically using to do this tests? CVS? Date?
Maybe you have a routing issue and messages are being re-injected? Or, if you're using 1.4.3 or an old CVS, intermediate DLR's would be seen as MO's as well.
Regards, On 18/09/2009, at 12:48, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries which I have mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
Entries I cannot figure out:
[1]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:48425955-1cad-4fe3-8867-bb56fc0bd685] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:69643A34383633636164632D633162322D346239662D623335382D623739386336633638356436207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323033303720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323033313220737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A] [udh:6:050003DC0901]
[2]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:eed80f6d-3d78-4140-a556-dbb59a856d8f] [flags:-1:0:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:id:0f22f6f9-8faf-4290-94c1-ce451fa18e21 sub:000 dlvrd:001 submit date:090918120227 done date:090918120242 stat:REJECTD err:000 text:] [udh:6:050003DB0801]
[3]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g73] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:a935aaad-b36c-4e42-8fee-d8e1f03571bf] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:69643A66363666323135382D333732352D343337652D616137312D633763333161633234366665207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323337353720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323338323520737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A] [udh:6:050003DD0901]
The first entry appears to be a normal MT, why then it is named "Receive SMS" instead of "Sent SMS" ? The second entry though it has the same event "Receive SMS" appears to be a DLR. Again the 3 rd entry seems to be a notmal MT message. I tried to make sense of the flags but to no use.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access log format to be whatever you like.
Regards, On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could cost us dear.
<alok.vcf> <alok.vcf> <alok.vcf>
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi Nikos,
I ain't sure where you are taking this, but I guess I know, so if you
are hurling taunts about anything I suggest you find someone else, as
you have completely misunderstood my requirement and my question here
in the first place.
I ain't interfering with Kannel's DLR handling at all we have been
using kannel for 3 years now and I guess that much time is enough to
know about any software what it does good or bad. I never said we were
talking about DLR's god knows from where you got that notion.
We do not use the smsbox but a proprietary smppbox (licensed from Stipe
Tolj) and we parse the log records whether MT or MO to get the
information about messages and their delivery reports from log files to
db.
Yes I am aware about the dlr-url feature of smsbox to get dlr HTTP
Posted back to me, but as mentioned above we do it other way.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the DB
much more information about the original message than can be obtained
through the DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
If anyone has reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was
unintentional.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume Cottenceau"
gc@...
To: "Alok Vaidya" alok@...
Cc: devel@...
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com>
writes:
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
at Kannel logs?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can
certainly have a
custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there.
Mostly I have
figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries
which I have
mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses
patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging
has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be
picked up and hence
we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi,
We use the CVS HEAD which I suppose is the 1.5.0 development branch.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Yeah, I've read that, but considering that latest stable is
1.4.3 and 1.5.0 is still being planned, I don't know what you're
talking about...
Are you talking about CVS HEAD? Then, what's the timestamp of
your checked out version?
On 18/09/2009, at 13:51, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi Alenjandro,
I had mentioned about the version in my first mail. It is Kannel -
1.5.0.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Alok,
Which version are specifically using to do this tests? CVS?
Date?
Maybe you have a routing issue and messages are being
re-injected? Or, if you're using 1.4.3 or an old CVS, intermediate
DLR's would be seen as MO's as well.
Regards,
On 18/09/2009, at 12:48, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly
have a custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes
there. Mostly I have figured them out but, I fail to understand some
other entries which I have mentioned below as also I want to know more
such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns
such as "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not
be picked up and hence we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
Entries I cannot figure out:
[1]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:48425955-1cad-4fe3-8867-bb56fc0bd685] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A34383633636164632D633162322D346239662D623335382D623739386336633638356436207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323033303720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323033313220737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DC0901]
[2]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:eed80f6d-3d78-4140-a556-dbb59a856d8f] [flags:-1:0:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:id:0f22f6f9-8faf-4290-94c1-ce451fa18e21 sub:000 dlvrd:001
submit date:090918120227 done date:090918120242 stat:REJECTD err:000
text:] [udh:6:050003DB0801]
[3]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g73] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:a935aaad-b36c-4e42-8fee-d8e1f03571bf] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A66363666323135382D333732352D343337652D616137312D633763333161633234366665207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323337353720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323338323520737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DD0901]
The first entry appears to be a normal MT, why then it is named
"Receive SMS" instead of "Sent SMS" ? The second entry though it has
the same event "Receive SMS" appears to be a DLR. Again the 3 rd entry
seems to be a notmal MT message. I tried to make sense of the flags but
to no use.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access log
format to be whatever you like.
Regards,
On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people
from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have
moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have
a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could
cost us dear.
<alok.vcf>
<alok.vcf>
<alok.vcf>
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Then, again, the DATE for the CVS code? On 18/09/2009, at 14:59, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
We use the CVS HEAD which I suppose is the 1.5.0 development branch.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: Yeah, I've read that, but considering that latest stable is 1.4.3 and 1.5.0 is still being planned, I don't know what you're talking about...
Are you talking about CVS HEAD? Then, what's the timestamp of your checked out version?
On 18/09/2009, at 13:51, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi Alenjandro,
I had mentioned about the version in my first mail. It is Kannel - 1.5.0.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: Alok,
Which version are specifically using to do this tests? CVS? Date?
Maybe you have a routing issue and messages are being re-injected? Or, if you're using 1.4.3 or an old CVS, intermediate DLR's would be seen as MO's as well.
Regards, On 18/09/2009, at 12:48, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries which I have mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
Entries I cannot figure out:
[1]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:48425955-1cad-4fe3-8867-bb56fc0bd685] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:69643A34383633636164632D633162322D346239662D623335382D623739386336633638356436207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323033303720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323033313220737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A] [udh:6:050003DC0901]
[2]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:eed80f6d-3d78-4140-a556-dbb59a856d8f] [flags:-1:0:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:id:0f22f6f9-8faf-4290-94c1-ce451fa18e21 sub:000 dlvrd:001 submit date:090918120227 done date:090918120242 stat:REJECTD err:000 text:] [udh:6:050003DB0801]
[3]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g73] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc] [BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:] [UUID:a935aaad-b36c-4e42-8fee-d8e1f03571bf] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1] [msg:132:69643A66363666323135382D333732352D343337652D616137312D633763333161633234366665207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323337353720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323338323520737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A] [udh:6:050003DD0901]
The first entry appears to be a normal MT, why then it is named "Receive SMS" instead of "Sent SMS" ? The second entry though it has the same event "Receive SMS" appears to be a DLR. Again the 3 rd entry seems to be a notmal MT message. I tried to make sense of the flags but to no use.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access log format to be whatever you like.
Regards, On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote: Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could cost us dear.
<alok.vcf> <alok.vcf> <alok.vcf>
<alok.vcf>
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi,
Sorry not to give you that earlier : bearerbox-cvs-20090831
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Then, again, the DATE for the CVS code?
On 18/09/2009, at 14:59, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
We use the CVS HEAD which I suppose is the 1.5.0 development branch.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Yeah, I've read that, but considering that latest stable is
1.4.3 and 1.5.0 is still being planned, I don't know what you're
talking about...
Are you talking about CVS HEAD? Then, what's the timestamp
of your checked out version?
On 18/09/2009, at 13:51, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi Alenjandro,
I had mentioned about the version in my first mail. It is Kannel -
1.5.0.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Alok,
Which version are specifically using to do this tests?
CVS? Date?
Maybe you have a routing issue and messages are being
re-injected? Or, if you're using 1.4.3 or an old CVS, intermediate
DLR's would be seen as MO's as well.
Regards,
On 18/09/2009, at 12:48, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly
have a custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes
there. Mostly I have figured them out but, I fail to understand some
other entries which I have mentioned below as also I want to know more
such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns
such as "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not
be picked up and hence we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
Entries I cannot figure out:
[1]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:48425955-1cad-4fe3-8867-bb56fc0bd685] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A34383633636164632D633162322D346239662D623335382D623739386336633638356436207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323033303720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323033313220737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DC0901]
[2]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g12] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:eed80f6d-3d78-4140-a556-dbb59a856d8f] [flags:-1:0:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:id:0f22f6f9-8faf-4290-94c1-ce451fa18e21 sub:000 dlvrd:001
submit date:090918120227 done date:090918120242 stat:REJECTD err:000
text:] [udh:6:050003DB0801]
[3]
2009-09-18 13:27:45 Receive SMS [SMSC:smpp_g73] [SVC:] [ACT:labroc]
[BINF:] [from:sssstest1] [to:+919920315112] [FID:]
[UUID:a935aaad-b36c-4e42-8fee-d8e1f03571bf] [flags:-1:2:-1:0:-1]
[msg:132:69643A66363666323135382D333732352D343337652D616137312D633763333161633234366665207375623A30303020646C7672643A303031207375626D697420646174653A30393039313831323337353720646F6E6520646174653A30393039313831323338323520737461743A52454A45435444206572723A30303020746578743A]
[udh:6:050003DD0901]
The first entry appears to be a normal MT, why then it is named
"Receive SMS" instead of "Sent SMS" ? The second entry though it has
the same event "Receive SMS" appears to be a DLR. Again the 3 rd entry
seems to be a notmal MT message. I tried to make sense of the flags but
to no use.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Alok,
Check the documentation, you can specify the access
log format to be whatever you like.
Regards,
On 18/09/2009, at 12:23, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
I am writing to this list instead of the "users" one because people
from this list are more probable of having an answer to my question.
Can anyone please elaborate the new access-log-format, I know we have
moved from 1.4.x to 1.5, I see some compatibility broken here. We have
a process that parses the log files and this format change/break could
cost us dear.
<alok.vcf>
<alok.vcf>
<alok.vcf>
<alok.vcf>
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Hi,
You are mistaken. I am not taunting you, not even addressing
you. Please get your facts straight before you mail insults.
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 3:47
PM
Subject: Re: access log format
Hi Nikos,
I ain't sure
where you are taking this, but I guess I know, so if you are hurling taunts
about anything I suggest you find someone else, as you have completely
misunderstood my requirement and my question here in the first place.
I
ain't interfering with Kannel's DLR handling at all we have been using kannel
for 3 years now and I guess that much time is enough to know about any
software what it does good or bad. I never said we were talking about DLR's
god knows from where you got that notion.
We do not use the smsbox but a
proprietary smppbox (licensed from Stipe Tolj) and we parse the log records
whether MT or MO to get the information about messages and their delivery
reports from log files to db.
Yes I am aware about the dlr-url feature
of smsbox to get dlr HTTP Posted back to me, but as mentioned above we do it
other way.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the
DB much more information about the original message than can be obtained
through the DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
If anyone has
reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was unintentional.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume
Cottenceau" gc@...
To: "Alok Vaidya" alok@...
Cc: devel@...
Sent:
Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS
by looking
at Kannel logs?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com>
writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying.
Yes I checked the documentation we can certainly have a
custom format, but it is
about the events that I talking here like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded
SMS" etc., I see some changes there. Mostly I have
figured them out but, I
fail to understand some other entries which I have
mentioned below as also I
want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why
this causes problems. Our parser uses patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search
for current (14.2 box) entries, now this event logging
has changed to "FAILED
SEND SMS" naturally this will not be picked up and hence
we loose on such entries.
That's my point here.
I might be a little
off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made
for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what
information you
need, and is of course
"supported" accross versions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
|
|
Re: access log format
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Hi Nikos,
I guess whom you are addressing then when you say "Alok's way is
superoir....". I always get the facts straight and never comment on
anything before making sure, unlike you.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
You are mistaken. I am not taunting you, not even
addressing you. Please get your facts straight before you mail insults.
Nikos
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, September 18, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject:
Re: access log format
Hi Nikos,
I ain't sure where you are taking this, but I guess I know, so if you
are hurling taunts about anything I suggest you find someone else, as
you have completely misunderstood my requirement and my question here
in the first place.
I ain't interfering with Kannel's DLR handling at all we have been
using kannel for 3 years now and I guess that much time is enough to
know about any software what it does good or bad. I never said we were
talking about DLR's god knows from where you got that notion.
We do not use the smsbox but a proprietary smppbox (licensed from Stipe
Tolj) and we parse the log records whether MT or MO to get the
information about messages and their delivery reports from log files to
db.
Yes I am aware about the dlr-url feature of smsbox to get dlr HTTP
Posted back to me, but as mentioned above we do it other way.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the DB
much more information about the original message than can be obtained
through the DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
If anyone has reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was
unintentional.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume Cottenceau" gc@...
To: "Alok Vaidya" alok@...
Cc: devel@...
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at'
routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
at Kannel logs?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can
certainly have a
custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there.
Mostly I have
figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries
which I have
mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses
patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging
has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be
picked up and hence
we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi Alok,
I think there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding in the dialog here. Alok, I don't think Nikos was trying to insult you.
Nikos is one of the most active and helpful members of the Kannel mailing lists and should be treated with some respect, as he was after all trying to help you.
If you want to continue this debate, please do so off the mailing list (mail Nikos directly) as it has no relevance here.
Thanks, Donald
2009/9/19 Alok Vaidya <alok@...>
Hi Nikos,
I guess whom you are addressing then when you say "Alok's way is
superoir....". I always get the facts straight and never comment on
anything before making sure, unlike you.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
You are mistaken. I am not taunting you, not even
addressing you. Please get your facts straight before you mail insults.
Nikos
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, September 18, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject:
Re: access log format
Hi Nikos,
I ain't sure where you are taking this, but I guess I know, so if you
are hurling taunts about anything I suggest you find someone else, as
you have completely misunderstood my requirement and my question here
in the first place.
I ain't interfering with Kannel's DLR handling at all we have been
using kannel for 3 years now and I guess that much time is enough to
know about any software what it does good or bad. I never said we were
talking about DLR's god knows from where you got that notion.
We do not use the smsbox but a proprietary smppbox (licensed from Stipe
Tolj) and we parse the log records whether MT or MO to get the
information about messages and their delivery reports from log files to
db.
Yes I am aware about the dlr-url feature of smsbox to get dlr HTTP
Posted back to me, but as mentioned above we do it other way.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the DB
much more information about the original message than can be obtained
through the DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
If anyone has reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was
unintentional.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume Cottenceau" gc@...
To: "Alok Vaidya" alok@...
Cc: devel@...
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at'
routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
at Kannel logs?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can
certainly have a
custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there.
Mostly I have
figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries
which I have
mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses
patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging
has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be
picked up and hence
we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
-- Donald Jackson http://www.thearchitech.comdonald(a) thearchitech.com
|
|
Re: access log format
Hi Donald,
I respect your opinion here and the explanation that you offer. As
someone who follows the mailing list I do know Nikos as being someone
who replies frequently to the list, but can you explain me the comment
he offered there. Did you think that was helpful ? Even remotely ? That
was sarcastic wasn't it ? Now I am game for some light jokes as I am
also for any opinion or discussion one has to offer once I put my query
in the public domain by mailing it to a list, and yes I am certainly
not here to prove my knowledge or to prove any else for that matter.
When anyone asks on a mailing list that is because he is looking for
some information beyond his knowledge and for that I am open to any
back and forth discussions with anyone on the list which as you might
have observed I was doing till (and even after) Nikos intervened. But
if someone hurls unnecessary, unrequired and uncalled for taunts, then
I am certainly not going to take that. And I beg to differ and I am
sorry for my strong language here but I didn't at all think that
through his comments Nikos was offering any help worth even a dime.
Even after that I tried my best explaining my situation without
insulting him anywhere. Also contrary to what you think I never
disrespected Nikos or even intended to rather it was quite the
opposite. But in the mail after that he came up with something that to
me was a blatant lie, mentioning he never ever mentioned me, which if
you go through his remarks, you can very well see for yourself.
I would just want to close this topic down here as I do not want to
blast the mailing list with off topic posts, but my original question
still remains unanswered.
Donald Jackson wrote:
Hi Alok,
I think there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding in
the dialog here. Alok, I don't think Nikos was trying to insult you.
Nikos is one of the most active and helpful members of the
Kannel mailing lists and should be treated with some respect, as he was
after all trying to help you.
If you want to continue this debate, please do so off the
mailing list (mail Nikos directly) as it has no relevance here.
Thanks,
Donald
2009/9/19 Alok Vaidya <alok@...>
Hi Nikos,
I guess whom you are addressing then when you say "Alok's way is
superoir....". I always get the facts straight and never comment on
anything before making sure, unlike you.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
You are mistaken. I am not taunting you, not
even
addressing you. Please get your facts straight before you mail insults.
Nikos
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, September 18, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject:
Re: access log format
Hi Nikos,
I ain't sure where you are taking this, but I guess I know, so if you
are hurling taunts about anything I suggest you find someone else, as
you have completely misunderstood my requirement and my question here
in the first place.
I ain't interfering with Kannel's DLR handling at all we have been
using kannel for 3 years now and I guess that much time is enough to
know about any software what it does good or bad. I never said we were
talking about DLR's god knows from where you got that notion.
We do not use the smsbox but a proprietary smppbox (licensed from Stipe
Tolj) and we parse the log records whether MT or MO to get the
information about messages and their delivery reports from log files to
db.
Yes I am aware about the dlr-url feature of smsbox to get dlr HTTP
Posted back to me, but as mentioned above we do it other way.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the DB
much more information about the original message than can be obtained
through the DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
If anyone has reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was
unintentional.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume Cottenceau" gc@...
To: "Alok Vaidya" alok@...
Cc: devel@...
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at'
routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
at Kannel logs?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com>
writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can
certainly have a
custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there.
Mostly I have
figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries
which I have
mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses
patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging
has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be
picked up and hence
we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
--
Donald Jackson
http://www.thearchitech.com
donald(a) thearchitech.com
[alok.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Alok Vaidya
n:Vaidya;Alok
org:RouteSms Solutions Limited;Technology
adr:Mind Space, Malad (West);;Office 401, Evershine Mall, New Link Road, ;Mumbai;MAH;400069;India
email;internet:alok@...
title:Team Leader
tel;work:40337676-640
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.routesms.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: access log format
Alok,
Nikos' comment was far from sarcastic. Earlier in the thread, Guillaume
Cottenceau suggested that you make use of Kannel's DLR mechanism for
your needs instead of parsing DLR logs.
I think Nikos response was more in reference to that suggestion; he simply
explained why it might be necessary for someone to parse log files
instead of relying on Kannel's DLR mechanism. I happen to agree with
his opinion that parsing the log files is superior for some
scenarios. I actually parse bearerbox access logs myself on a daily
basis for reporting. Others may not need this, but I find it more
appropriate for my requirements.
His final statement finally just states that if someone has committed
an update which somehow changed the format, it must not have been
deliberate.
There's no taunting going on here. He was really just trying to help :)
Nii. On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Alok Vaidya <alok@...> wrote:
Hi Donald,
I respect your opinion here and the explanation that you offer. As
someone who follows the mailing list I do know Nikos as being someone
who replies frequently to the list, but can you explain me the comment
he offered there. Did you think that was helpful ? Even remotely ? That
was sarcastic wasn't it ? Now I am game for some light jokes as I am
also for any opinion or discussion one has to offer once I put my query
in the public domain by mailing it to a list, and yes I am certainly
not here to prove my knowledge or to prove any else for that matter.
When anyone asks on a mailing list that is because he is looking for
some information beyond his knowledge and for that I am open to any
back and forth discussions with anyone on the list which as you might
have observed I was doing till (and even after) Nikos intervened. But
if someone hurls unnecessary, unrequired and uncalled for taunts, then
I am certainly not going to take that. And I beg to differ and I am
sorry for my strong language here but I didn't at all think that
through his comments Nikos was offering any help worth even a dime.
Even after that I tried my best explaining my situation without
insulting him anywhere. Also contrary to what you think I never
disrespected Nikos or even intended to rather it was quite the
opposite. But in the mail after that he came up with something that to
me was a blatant lie, mentioning he never ever mentioned me, which if
you go through his remarks, you can very well see for yourself.
I would just want to close this topic down here as I do not want to
blast the mailing list with off topic posts, but my original question
still remains unanswered.
Donald Jackson wrote:
Hi Alok,
I think there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding in
the dialog here. Alok, I don't think Nikos was trying to insult you.
Nikos is one of the most active and helpful members of the
Kannel mailing lists and should be treated with some respect, as he was
after all trying to help you.
If you want to continue this debate, please do so off the
mailing list (mail Nikos directly) as it has no relevance here.
Thanks,
Donald
2009/9/19 Alok Vaidya <alok@...>
Hi Nikos,
I guess whom you are addressing then when you say "Alok's way is
superoir....". I always get the facts straight and never comment on
anything before making sure, unlike you.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
You are mistaken. I am not taunting you, not
even
addressing you. Please get your facts straight before you mail insults.
Nikos
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, September 18, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject:
Re: access log format
Hi Nikos,
I ain't sure where you are taking this, but I guess I know, so if you
are hurling taunts about anything I suggest you find someone else, as
you have completely misunderstood my requirement and my question here
in the first place.
I ain't interfering with Kannel's DLR handling at all we have been
using kannel for 3 years now and I guess that much time is enough to
know about any software what it does good or bad. I never said we were
talking about DLR's god knows from where you got that notion.
We do not use the smsbox but a proprietary smppbox (licensed from Stipe
Tolj) and we parse the log records whether MT or MO to get the
information about messages and their delivery reports from log files to
db.
Yes I am aware about the dlr-url feature of smsbox to get dlr HTTP
Posted back to me, but as mentioned above we do it other way.
Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the DB
much more information about the original message than can be obtained
through the DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
If anyone has reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was
unintentional.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume Cottenceau" gc@...
To: "Alok Vaidya" alok@...
Cc: devel@...
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: access log format
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at'
routesms.com> writes:
Hi,
Sorry I didn't get you.
Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
at Kannel logs?
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com>
writes:
Hi,
Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can
certainly have a
custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
like "Sent SMS"/
"FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there.
Mostly I have
figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries
which I have
mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses
patterns such as
"Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
event logging
has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be
picked up and hence
we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
--
Donald Jackson
http://www.thearchitech.com
donald(a) thearchitech.com
|
