Ritesh Shah wrote: > The pi dispatcher of mmsc expects a 200 OK response back along > with a message-ID, as defined in the WAP specs
can you please quote *exactly* where this can be found in the PPG specs?! I'm assuming that there is no such expectation concerning the HTTP response code. Beware that the series 2xxx codes are also valid HTTP response codes. It's a mature idiom that HTTP servers need to answer "200 OK" if the request was successfull. BTW, which MMSC is used here?! Ahh Jatayuuu, ok. > I have made the following config for ppg > > group = ppg > ppg-url = /wappush > ppg-port = 8080 > concurrent-pushes = 100 > users = 1024 > ppg-allow-ip = 127.0.0.1 > ppg-deny-ip = 194.100.32.89;194.100.32.103 > trusted-pi = true > > group = wap-push-user > wap-push-user = foo > ppg-username = foo > ppg-password = bar > allow-ip = 127.0.0.1 > > Following is the ppg log of sms gw. > > 2003-03-27 16:49:18 [11] DEBUG: HTTP: Creating HTTPClient for > `10.0.0.1'. > 2003-03-27 16:49:18 [14] INFO: PPG: Accept request </wappush> from > <10.0.0.1> > 2003-03-27 16:49:18 [14] WARNING: erroneous control entity > 2003-03-27 16:49:18 [14] DEBUG: PPG: send_bad_message_response: > telling pi > 2003-03-27 16:49:18 [14] DEBUG: HTTP: Destroying HTTPClient area > 0x81575e0. > 2003-03-27 16:49:18 [14] DEBUG: HTTP: Destroying HTTPClient for > `10.0.0.1'. > 2003-03-27 16:49:18 [14] WARNING: PPG: unable to parse mime content, > the request unacceptable > > > Following is the mmsc application pi dispatcher log > > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 PI dispatcher details > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 Ppg-Adr [http://127.0.0.1:8080/wappush] > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 App-Id [7777] > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 Priority [2] > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 Push-Type [2] > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 Dest-Addr > [+123456789/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 Ser-Type [3] > 27-02-2003 02:51:09 Bear-Type [1] > 27-02-2003 02:51:12 DATA SEND:[POST /wappush HTTP/1.1 > Host: 127.0.0.1:8080 > Connection: close > User-Agent: Jataayu MMS Dispatcher > Accept: text/html > Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=jataayupi; > type="application/xml" > Content-Length: 737 > > --jataayupi > Content-Type: application/xml > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > <!DOCTYPE pap PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD PAP 1.0//EN" > "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/pap_1.0.dtd";> > <pap> > <push-message > push-id="235http://127.0.0.1:8080/wappush7777104871366918042893839821184112102 > 4" source-reference="7777" > > <address > address-value="WAPPUSH=+123456789/[EMAIL PROTECTED]"/> > <quality-of-service priority="medium" delivery-method="unconfirmed" > bearer="sms"/> > </push-message> > </pap> > > --jataayupi > X-Wap-Application-Id: x-wap-application:mms.ua > Content-Type: application/vnd.wap.mms-message > > 4GaU4qqd4_01ZZ09ZZ14kyczM4kc3AA9HSs] > 27-02-2003 02:51:12 http response received [202] ok, so our PPG returns HTTP response code "202 Acceppted" which is legitim. The PI which acts as HTTP > 27-02-2003 02:51:12 push id field is null in received data > pi_header.c.152 ok, this is a quote from WAP-247-PAP-20010429-a.pdf, section 8.2: "Result notifications are (if requested) sent to the PI for all recipients whose pending message was successfully cancelled, using its originally assigned push-id." And section 8.3 indicates that a push-id is *required*, yep. Aarno, is our PPG returning the push-id in the response? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 D�sseldorf 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
