Richard,

Kannel sets the registered_delivery parameter looking into your dlr-mask,
and then filters the dlr received according to it.

I'd look into:

1. What's the dlr-mask you're using. Try with "2".

2. Set the log level to 0 and look at kannel.log for some MT PDU's. You
should see the registered_delivery value there. It should be "2" as well.

Hope it helps,

Alejandro

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Richard Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Dear community,
>
> We have many web applications using Kannel to send and receive SMS. We are
> using MySQL as a Delivery Report (DLR) external storage.
>
> Some of our applications use mass SMS sending (sometimes more than 30
> thousand SMS are sent at one time).
>
> Our SMS operator has alerted us to the fact that there is too much traffic
> being processed in our connections, both outbound and inbound.
> The outbound part is obviously our applications, but the inbound part is
> what caught us by surprise.
> Although our applications are requesting only DLR's in case of delivery
> failure (notification type = 2), Kannel is requesting also DLR's for
> delivery success (notification type = 3 (2 + 1)). This is documented in the
> source code as:
>     /* if delivery reports are asked, lets ask for them too */
>     /* even the sender might not be interested in delivery or non delivery
> */
>     /* we still need them back to clear out the memory after the message */
>     /* has been delivered or non delivery has been confirmed */
>
> We think that this behavior is only required when using internal DLR
> storage.
> We are thinking of changing Kannel's source code to use the same
> notification type what our applications are requesting. This will result in
> DLR's records of delivered SMS being kept in the database forever. We then
> can use an SQL script to delete these records.
> This way we are reducing inbound traffic in about 80 to 90%, that will
> result in an huge increase on delivery speed.
> Has anyone had this problem before? Is there already a solution to this
> issue?
> Is this solution the right approach to solve this issue?
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> Best regards,
> Richard Spencer
>
>
>

Reply via email to