RE: Accounting with Kannel
EMI driver reports 2 messages received for each MO in /status. A better solution for accounting would be kannel.access parsing, for example. Or integrate kannel with an accounting database, as I did. Angel Fradejas Mediafusión España, S.A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mediafusion.es Tel. +34 91 252 32 00 Fax +34 91 572 27 08 -Mensaje original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Filipe Múrias Enviado el: jueves 25 de abril de 2002 0:46 Para: devel Asunto: Accounting with Kannel Hi people! I've been using Kannel status (via admin web interface) to do SMS accounting for each one of my large accounts. The problem is that the number of transfered messages Kannel reports is much higher than the actual value. Does anybody have this problem ? Is it due to the fact that I have the EMI keepalive feature turned on (30 sec.) ? Are the keepalive messages counted too ? Can you tell me about a nice solution to do accounting with Kannel ? I'm using Kannel 1.1.6 on a RedHat 7.2 box. Thank you. Filipe Múrias
Stable SMSC with wavecom modems
Hi All I've already sent this on the users list but I thought maybe the devel list was a better place to post this. Has anybody been using wavecom modems and AT2 as SMSC under high loads both for sending and receiving? I'm having trouble making it work correctly. If I'm only sending a lot of messages it works perfectly but if the receivers of these messages start replying to the messages they get it screews up. Some messages are duplicated and others fail completely and doesn't get send. Are there any settings I can change to make this work more stable? I've tried to change the sendline-sleep setting to something higher but it doesn't help. Does anybody have any ideas? Jacob Vennervald
Re: Fw: Kannel version 1.1.5-1 fault tolerance and memory leaks
Hi James, From: James Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Kannel version 1.1.5-1 fault tolerance and memory leaks Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:29:26 +0100 - Original Message - From: James Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Sir/Madam, I have the following problems and wonder if this had already been reported and if you have a fix: ++ 1). If I send an empty UDP packet to the WAP box, it does not serve any more. (I have to restart the service.) Can you report your settings with more details ? 2). Memory leaks: starting points: sizeres Wapbox: 8659K5256K Bearbox: 9552K4920K After 239,000 hits: sizeres Wapbox: 8912K5552K Bearbox: 10M 6040K Yes, bearerbox leak no hopefully fixed, thanks Aarno _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems
Jacob Vennervald Madsen wrote: Are there any settings I can change to make this work more stable? I've tried to change the sendline-sleep setting to something higher but it doesn't help. Does anybody have any ideas? please send us a log of the smsbox to see what's going on there. It's hard to see it by imaginations :) Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are
Re: CVS is broken?
Thanks. Will diff the patches for a few things today and submit them. Alex On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Stipe Tolj wrote: Seems to be fixed now. Commit that fixed the bug was: http://www.kannel.3glab.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gateway/gw/smsbox.c.diff?r1=1.185r2=1.186sortby=date -- Alex Judd http://www.skywire.co.uk
RE: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems
This is what it says in the core access log: 2002-04-25 11:25:15 FAILED Send SMS [SMSC:4526750112] [SVC:telecom2002] [ACT:] [from:+4526750106] [to:26750106] [flags:0:1:0:0:0] [msg:56:spam 13 of 15. Please reply with the same message. ASAP.] [udh:0:] 2002-04-25 11:25:15 FAILED Send SMS [SMSC:4526750112] [SVC:telecom2002] [ACT:] [from:+4526750106] [to:26750106] [flags:0:1:0:0:0] [msg:56:spam 14 of 15. Please reply with the same message. ASAP.] [udh:0:] 2002-04-25 11:25:15 FAILED Send SMS [SMSC:4526750112] [SVC:telecom2002] [ACT:] [from:+4526750106] [to:26750106] [flags:0:1:0:0:0] [msg:56:spam 15 of 15. Please reply with the same message. ASAP.] [udh:0:] 2002-04-25 11:25:15 FAILED Send SMS [SMSC:4526750112] [SVC:default] [ACT:] [from:1234] [to:+4526750106] [flags:0:1:0:0:0] [msg:63:Reply: spam+1+of+15.+Please+reply+with+the+same+message.+ASAP. This is what it says in the core log: 2002-04-25 09:25:14 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMMS=2^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: TP-Validity-Period: 24.0 hours 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMMS=2^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: TP-Validity-Period: 24.0 hours 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMMS=2^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: TP-Validity-Period: 24.0 hours 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=61^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: international starting with + (+4526750106) 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: TP-Validity-Period: 24.0 hours 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=69^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=69^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMGS=69^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: send command status: -1 What does the AT command AT+CMMS=2 mean? I can't find it in my manual and it seems like the errors come after that command. Best regards, Jacob Vennervald -Original Message- From: Stipe Tolj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25. april 2002 10:19 To: Jacob Vennervald Madsen Cc: Kannel lists (E-mail 2) Subject: Re: Stable SMSC with wavecom
Re: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems
Well, maybe won't change anything, by the way you have AT+CMMS=2^M It does not work with wavecom, and you should take it away from your source or get current cvs that should have a setting for it. Maybe then it will work. I had the same problem, but Usually I don't use modem to send sms, only to receive so I can't tell you if now it works. Andrea - Original Message - From: Jacob Vennervald Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kannel lists (E-mail 2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: RE: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems This is what it says in the core access log: 2002-04-25 09:25:14 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMMS=2^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: TP-Validity-Period: 24.0 hours
RE: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems
Where do I remove it from in source 1.1.6? Jacob Vennervald -Original Message- From: Andrea Viscovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25. april 2002 11:58 To: Jacob Vennervald Madsen; Kannel lists (E-mail 2) Subject: Re: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems Well, maybe won't change anything, by the way you have AT+CMMS=2^M It does not work with wavecom, and you should take it away from your source or get current cvs that should have a setting for it. Maybe then it will work. I had the same problem, but Usually I don't use modem to send sms, only to receive so I can't tell you if now it works. Andrea - Original Message - From: Jacob Vennervald Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kannel lists (E-mail 2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: RE: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems This is what it says in the core access log: 2002-04-25 09:25:14 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMMS=2^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: TP-Validity-Period: 24.0 hours
Re: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems
Search cmms in smsc_at2.c source. There is only 1 row. do an /* */ over it Andrea - Original Message - From: Jacob Vennervald Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andrea Viscovich [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kannel lists (E-mail 2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:14 PM Subject: RE: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems Where do I remove it from in source 1.1.6? Jacob Vennervald -Original Message- From: Andrea Viscovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25. april 2002 11:58 To: Jacob Vennervald Madsen; Kannel lists (E-mail 2) Subject: Re: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems Well, maybe won't change anything, by the way you have AT+CMMS=2^M It does not work with wavecom, and you should take it away from your source or get current cvs that should have a setting for it. Maybe then it will work. I had the same problem, but Usually I don't use modem to send sms, only to receive so I can't tell you if now it works. Andrea - Original Message - From: Jacob Vennervald Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kannel lists (E-mail 2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: RE: Stable SMSC with wavecom modems This is what it says in the core access log: 2002-04-25 09:25:14 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- AT+CMMS=2^M 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: -- ERROR 2002-04-25 09:25:15 [5] DEBUG: AT2[4526750112]: TP-Validity-Period: 24.0 hours
Firmware update for wavecom
Has anybody got a firware update for a Wavecom 1200 series modem later than 410aM11B.58 1137292 090600 17:39? Jacob Vennervald
Re: Fw: Kannel version 1.1.5-1 fault tolerance and memory leaks
- Original Message - From: Aarno Syvänen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ 1). If I send an empty UDP packet to the WAP box, it does not serve any more. (I have to restart the service.) Can you report your settings with more details ? followings are extracted from /var/log/kannel/wapbox.log 2002-04-19 12:41:51 [2] WARNING: WSP UNIT: Empty datagram. 2002-04-19 12:45:51 [2] WARNING: WSP UNIT: Empty datagram. 2002-04-19 12:51:51 [2] WARNING: WSP UNIT: Empty datagram. 2002-04-19 12:55:52 [2] WARNING: WSP UNIT: Empty datagram. 2002-04-19 12:56:20 [2] WARNING: WSP UNIT: Empty datagram. ## wapbox config group = wapbox bearerbox-host = localhost log-file = /var/log/kannel/wapbox.log log-level = 1 device-home = http://wap.demon.net/ 2). Memory leaks: starting points: sizeres Wapbox: 8659K5256K Bearbox: 9552K4920K fresh starting actually at: sizeres Wapbox: 8048K4160K Bearbox: 7680K3760K After 239,000 hits: sizeres Wapbox: 8912K5552K Bearbox: 10M 6040K Yes, bearerbox leak no hopefully fixed, thanks ^^ should be now? Cheers
Re: Bug in wap_push_ppg.c ?
Paul Keogh wrote:
I think the function;
/*
* Check that we have rigth application id for confirmed push (it is,
push.sia)
*/
static int coriented_deliverable(long appid_code)
{
return appid_code == 2;
}
should be
static int coriented_deliverable(long appid_code)
{
return appid_code == 1;
}
This would then match the wap/wsp_strings definitions of;
NUMBERED(application_id,
ASSIGN(*, 0x00)
ASSIGN(push.sia, 0x01)
ASSIGN(wml.ua, 0x02)
ASSIGN(wta.ua, 0x03)
ASSIGN(mms.ua, 0x04)
ASSIGN(push.syncml, 0x05)
ASSIGN(loc.ua, 0x06)
)
Right ?
any comments from you Aarno?
Stipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Wapme Systems AG
Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf
Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
---
wapme.net - wherever you are
[PATCH] SMPP null terminated input
Null terminated messages received by kannel keep hold of the null and turn it into an ''. This is best demonstrated if you do a get-url with an input null terminated message. e.g. received: HelloWorld\0 resulting URL requested: http://foo.bar/page.html?text=HelloWorld; The attached patch chops off the trailing null if it's present (according to the SMPP specification, the passed message doesn't have to be null terminated). Simon null-term-msg.diff Description: Binary data
