Re: access log format

What's the issue? Sorry after so many garbage on the thread I still  
not see what's the point. Logs are fine and any changes made on the  
format are documented on ChangeLog.

If your software croaks with the new format, either define a custom  
log format or change your software to use the new one. You don't  
expect that everybody else should accommodate to your particular  
requirements right?

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]



On 19/09/2009, at 15:19, Alok Vaidya wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just that we concentrate towards the main issue now as all other  
> things have been settled.
>
> Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean with "please solve the format issue"?
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19/09/2009, at 15:02, Alok Vaidya wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nii,
>>>
>>> I now get the exact meaning of what Nikos was trying to say, but  
>>> it looked a bit sarcastic then, now after your detailed  
>>> explanation I can see why it is not. Thanks for clearing the haze.  
>>> Thank you very much.
>>>
>>> Also since I can now see the things clear, let me sincerely  
>>> apologize Nikos, for taking him wrong. Sorry Nikos, but it then so  
>>> cleanly felt just the opposite. Anyways I got it now. Sorry for  
>>> whatever wrong I might have said to you.
>>>
>>> And also as suggested please solve the format issue.
>>>
>>> Nii Ako Ampa-Sowa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 <[email protected]>  
>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Donald Jackson
>>>>> http://www.thearchitech.com
>>>>> donald(a)thearchitech.com
>>>>
>>> <alok.vcf>
>>
> <alok.vcf>