Thanks your answer Spameden. I thought the same thing, but the message ids
are complete different:

if you see the log:

submit_sm_resp: message_id: 31537685   (decimal)
deliver_sm:   ts=613852054   (decimal)

regards,



2014-07-18 16:04 GMT-05:00 spameden <[email protected]>:

> err, I meant hex in submit_sm and decimal in deliver_sm packets.
>
>
> 2014-07-19 1:04 GMT+04:00 spameden <[email protected]>:
>
> It looks like your SMSC operator gives hex number in submit_sm packet and
>> hex number in deliver_sm, so you need to add this in smsc group
>> configuration:
>>
>> msg-id-type = 0x02
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-19 0:40 GMT+04:00 Mario Noboa <[email protected]>:
>>
>> Of course Niel, thanks!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-18 15:30 GMT-05:00 Niel Smith <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> Hi Mario,
>>>>
>>>> Would it be possible to supply the full submit_sm, submit_sm_resp, and
>>>> deliver_sm PDU dumps?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 July 2014 22:12, Mario Noboa <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi list,
>>>>>
>>>>> I got a DLR problem with an operator.
>>>>>
>>>>> When sent a "submit_sm", kannel receipt a message id:
>>>>>
>>>>> *message_id: "1e13a15"*
>>>>> *DLR[internal]: Adding DLR smsc=SMSC1, ts=31537685, src=30100,
>>>>> dst=XXXXXXXXXXX, mask=31, boxc=*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But its DLR arrives with another id:
>>>>>
>>>>> *2014-07-17 12:45:16 [32271] [35] DEBUG: DLR[internal]: Looking for
>>>>> DLR smsc=SMSC1, ts=613852054, dst=975647918, type=1*
>>>>> *2014-07-17 12:45:16 [32271] [35] WARNING: DLR[internal]: DLR from
>>>>> SMSC<SMSC1> for DST<975647918> not found.*
>>>>> *2014-07-17 12:45:16 [32271] [35] ERROR: SMPP[SMSC1]: got DLR but
>>>>> could not find message or was not interested in it id<613852054>
>>>>> dst<XXXXXXXXX>, type<1>*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> if you notice both are in decimal and they are different. *31537685
>>>>> and **613852054*
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to configure version 33 to use Timestamp, but they don't let
>>>>> me connect in that way.  There is any way to use timestamp instead of
>>>>> message id?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your answers!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mario
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to