Re: access log format

Then, again, the DATE for the CVS code?
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]



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?
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> 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,
>>>> --
>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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>