Wow, this was really timeconsuming challenge for me... Had to spend plenty of hours on googling for the exec line to see how other people did it and nothing worked, including write permissions etc. etc....
I even began to dig into the source code to try to see if there was/is a bug somewhere. I think the exec-code gets executed in ./gw/urltrans.c? I was thinking about recompiling everything with debug flags (-o0 -g, AFAIR) and then set a breakpoint just before running the exec-code (btw: what should I remember if I recompile with full debug flags, if anything?)... I finally succeeded by finding a piece of a configuration file that I stole from. Here's my new config-part regarding sms-service (and this solved my problem): ------------------------------------------ group = sms-service keyword = default exec = ./sms.sh a=%a t=%t q=%q Q=%Q I=%I d=%d A=%A F=%F n=%n c=%c m=%m M=%M C=%C u=%u B=%B o=%o O=%O f=%f # if max-messages = 0, then error "No reply sent, denied" max-messages = 0 #text = "Thank you! I appreciate your sms..." concatenation = true catch-all = yes #white-list = "http://localhost/whitelist"; ------------------------------------------ After I have looked a bit in urltrans.c, I believe my problem was that I DIDN'T comment out the "text"-field and I guess that EITHER you have a text-reply ("Thank you!. ...") OR you have an exec-statement... Am I right? At least it works now using above config-file... I'm only a bit annoyed by the fact that in my incoming sms text file, all blank spaces are made into plus / "+"'es and I think a plus / "+" is made into "%2B" - this looks stupid in plain text when I "cat" the file.... Well, these are just minor things which I guess I can live with (search and replace plus'es with blank spaces or something)... Any comments? And thanks again! Now somebody else perhaps can use my experience, if they get the same problem as me with the malfunctioning exec-statement :-) Regards, Martin On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Thomas Sieh wrote: > this should not be your problem. if you execute the script by hand and > you don't get the corresponding output in the result file, there is a > problem with the script. I think with the permission from the > resultfile, if you have execute permissions to the script file. > > br, > thomas
