Re: access log format

The subject was "access log format" isn't it? Please focus on that  
part and address whatever other personal issues you may have to Nikos  
directly.

--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]



On 19/09/2009, at 8:17, Alok Vaidya wrote:

> 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 -----
>> From: Alok Vaidya
>> To: Nikos Balkanas
>> Cc: Guillaume Cottenceau ; [email protected]
>> 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"  
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> To: "Alok Vaidya" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>> 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>