What's the issue? Sorry after so many garbage on the thread I still
not see what's the point. Logs are fine and any changes made on the
format are documented on ChangeLog.
If your software croaks with the new format, either define a custom
log format or change your software to use the new one. You don't
expect that everybody else should accommodate to your particular
requirements right?
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]
On 19/09/2009, at 15:19, Alok Vaidya wrote:
Hi,
Just that we concentrate towards the main issue now as all other
things have been settled.
Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
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>
<alok.vcf>
