Ok, just sent my patch to the devel list. If you're not subscribed let me know and I'll forward it to you (I don't want to cross-post with patches on the users list).
Regards, Alex On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:09 PM, fajar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow, that's a good idea, I can get the submit_sm_resp message_id from > kannel right now. Usually I must relate MT transaction with DLR with special > number. I can't wait the patch J > > > > Fajar > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Alejandro Guerrieri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Friday, September 19, 2008 3:51 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: get mesage ID without DLR > > > > I'm finishing a patch to be able to grab the submit_sm_resp message_id > field and use it with a paremter on the dlr-url (I've chose the "%w" > parameter for this). You'll need a mask anyway, only that the "dlr" won't > come from the carrier but from inside kannel itself. > > Will post it to the list later so it can be also tested by other people. > > Stay tuned ;) > > Regards, > > Alejandro > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Gustavo Mohme C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > I am currently using mask=31. Nevertheless, it is generating unnecessary > traffic since I am only interested in getting the message_id from the > submit_sm_resp. Is there a way to get the message_id without using mask=#? > The reason I only need to get the message_id is because, after the id is > stored, I use query_sm to check the status(SMSC doesn't support DLR) of the > message. What would be the simplest mask value that would get this job > done(mask=1 maybe?). > Thanks a lot! > Gustavo > > > > >
