Alejandro,

Actually, kannel can reuse validity period and automatically issue (perhapse
configurable?) expiration dlr + wipe a message when a message is past that
period by some good value (lets say + 1 day - this should be more than
enough).
In fact we could issue another kind of dlr even - maybe "unknown" or smth...
this would both solve a problem with bb building up queue of dlrs that will
never be matched and aid external application logic imho

Regards,
  Konstantin

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Alejandro Guerrieri <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Dlr's are far from perfect. Many carriers don't return it on all cases, so
> it's logical that it'll eventually grow over time.
>
> Check with your carriers what's the expected lifetime of SMS on their
> network and run a query to clean records older than that period (if they
> hold it for 3 days, you shouldn't be expecting any DLR's after that period).
>
> If you don't know/can't answer, 5-7 days should be a safe ballpark figure.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM, brett skinner 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Sorry forgot to add that I am using mysql storage
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: brett skinner <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM
>> Subject: Large and growing number of queued DLR
>> To: Users <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> We have been sending sms successfully and receiving the DLRs. As far as I
>> can tell we have been processing them correctly and all the logs in the web
>> application point to no failures. I had a look at the logs for smsbox and
>> there were a couple of URLs that it could not fetch but those have already
>> been fixed and read in from the log file. However the DLR storage number is
>> still growing and there have been no further errors in the logs.
>>
>> Is there a rate at which Kannel tries to post the DLR to the specified
>> URL?
>> Is it perhaps because Kannel may have been restarted and now it has no
>> knowledge of those DLR because the information that it needs to do the look
>> up is now gone?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to