Have you checked the logs? 2009/6/12 Nikos Balkanas <[email protected]>
> Nice! Smart guess. However, if J's bearerbox shows no SMS sent, that bbox > didn't send them. > > @jessika: > > I would contact my SMSc. Seems it was their mistake leaving the ports open > to the old box. Maybe they are mistaken again about the IP address and it is > the new box. Even more could be the 2 boxes are NATed to the same IP. > > If all these fail, get a from/to field from one of these offending > messages, and try to match (access logs) from which bbox it originated, > because it doesn't seem that your original bbox sent them. > > BR, > Nikos > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Benaiad <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2009 10:23 AM > *Subject:* Re: smsc bombardment without smsbox running > > Maybe you've set "bearerbox-host" in the sms-group and it was pointing to > the old machine. > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:09 AM, <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The computer was on the network.Β It is just that the SMSC blocks the >> port in question to users who aren't of pre-approved IPs. As for smsbox >> being somehow started, I am the only one using that computer, and I haven't >> started it (smsbox) in at least two weeks.Β Also, I never definately never >> configured any routing options.Β And also, according to bearerbox logs >> nothing was sent.Β All I see is it confirming its connection about every 5 >> minutes.Β This doesn't at all account for the messages which were being >> sent every few seconds, according to SMSC.Β (I'm not entirely convinced >> that there isn't some exaggeration on their part) >> >> Β >> >> Thanks for your reply >> >> Β >> >> J >> >> Β >> >> *From:* Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2009 8:45 AM >> *To:* von Gunten-Hinke Jessica, SCS-NIT-NIO-SE-ISC; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: smsc bombardment without smsbox running >> >> Β >> >> Hi, >> >> Β >> >> The only thing that I can think of, is that an *smsbox* (or SQLbox) got >> active somehow. I mean, you were sure that no network access was to the >> SMSc, and yet there was. How difficult would be to start smsbox? Propably >> someone needed to use it and enabled the network and smsbox. >> >> The only configuration without smsbox that can enable that (provifed that >> network exists) are the reroute & reroute-smsc-id options in the smsc group. >> >> Β >> >> These problems can best be diagnosed while still active, i.e. without >> rebooting/restarting application or server. ToΒ find outΒ you need to look >> at the bearerbox logs (access +application) and see where bearerbox got SMS >> from. >> >> Β >> >> Β >> >> BR, >> >> Nikos >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* [email protected] >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> >> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2009 9:16 AM >> >> *Subject:* smsc bombardment without smsbox running >> >> Β >> >> Hi All, >> >> Β >> >> I have a strange situation. >> >> Β >> >> I set up kannel.Β It was a functional setup but it was on a computer >> whose IP didn't have access to my SMSC's port. >> >> Β >> >> Later I made the "real" setup on another computer and more or less >> abandoned the other.Β >> >> Β >> >> Bearerbox remained set to start at boot on the original computer, but not >> smsbox.Β The computer had been rebooted a number of times, so there is no >> reason to think smsbox was still running,since there was no one to turn >> start it.Β Regardless the SMSC has called and said they are being bombarded >> with SMSs, which they are rejecting, which are originating from the original >> computer's IP.Β I really don't understand how this could be, since smsbox >> wasn't started, and no one has tried to send SMSs from it. >> >> Β >> >> Does anyone know of a scenario which could explain this, due to >> configurations otherwise? >> >> Β >> >> TIA >> >> Β >> >> J >> >> Β >> >> >
