RE: SMPP DLR

I agree, why not use Kannel as opensmppbox should work well with Kannel.

However another mature implementation is OpenSmpp see
https://github.com/OpenSmpp/opensmpp

It seems from your post that opensmppbox works fine with  transceiver binds
and the only bug you have found is with separate transmit and receive binds.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Guerrieri [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 2:30 AM
To: Porter, Kelvin
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: SMPP DLR

What about Kannel? ;)

--
Alejandro Guerrieri

> On Mar 5, 2014, at 6:20 PM, "Porter, Kelvin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I suspect that opensmppbox DLR works with transceiver binds (it appears
that there exist some code to support it under some circumstances).  I am
looking at developing a test client that will enable me to verify that fact.
I do not know of any good FOSS SMPP clients available.  Any suggestions?
> 
> I am trying to understand why it appears not to work when the client has
separate binds for transmit and receive.  I have not yet seen anything in
the SMPP v3.4 specification which seems to preclude it, but I may be
mistaken.
> On the other hand, it may just be functionality that the opensmppbox
and/or bearerbox do not support?  Or I could be simply misunderstanding some
aspect of the situation.
> 
> I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me will set me straight.
The SMPP specification is a good reference but does not always fully explain
the semantics of the SMPP protocol's syntax.
> 
> Any guidance is appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kelvin R. Porter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hillel Bilman [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 5:08 PM
> To: Porter, Kelvin
> Cc: [email protected]; 'Rene Kluwen'
> Subject: RE: SMPP DLR
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> Please consider breaking this into two solutions, each solution Rene will
need to accept on its own merits :
> 1)First create a patch that enables opensmppbox to work with transceiver
binds.
> 2) Secondly based on the successful acceptance of the first patch, create
a new patch that enables opensmppbox to work with separate transmit and
receive binds.
> 
> Rgds
> Hillel
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:41:56 -0600
> From: "Porter, Kelvin" <[email protected]>
> To: "Porter, Kelvin" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
>    <[email protected]>
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: SMPP DLR
> Message-ID:
>    
> <73E6BC00A0E3DC4FB8B924269261D52D2E061A9D91@mail1.hypercube-llc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Is there a reason that DLRs cannot be received on a separate receiver bind
(from the transmitter bind)?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kelvin R. Porter
> 
> From: devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Porter, 
> Kelvin
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 5:16 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: SMPP DLR
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes.  Rene is correct.
> 
> I think that I was misreading the SMPP v3.4 Section 5.2.17
"registered_delivery".
> 
> If I set the value to 1.  Everything appears to work up to a point.  I see
DLR records created in my bearerbox DLR queue and in my opensmppbox DLR
queue.  The DLR entries look correct.
> 
> My next question is about the fact that the DLRs stay in their respective
queues.  Is that because I have separate transmit and receive binds for my
client(s)?  Does delivery only occur on transceiver binds?
> 
> Any pointers are appreciated.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kelvin R. Porter
> 
> From: devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Porter, 
> Kelvin
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:45 PM
> To: Rene Kluwen
> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: SMPP DLR
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for the corrections.  I will investigate further.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kelvin R. Porter
> 
> From: Rene Kluwen [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:13 AM
> To: Porter, Kelvin
> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: SMPP DLR
> 
> Your implementation is not correct.
> 
> Also the original value of 0x1f for registered_delivery is invalid.
> Setting both the 2 last significant bits is a reserved value and hence not
supported.
> If you follow the smpp specifications, you will get proper results.
> 
> == Rene
> 
> [...elided erroneous proposal...]
> 
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
> scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://www.kannel.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140304/77c2e0c6/a
> ttachm
> ent-0001.html>
> 
> 
> 
>