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