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>
