Content of SMSIN-yyyymmdd.LOG file

Content of SMSIN-yyyymmdd.LOG file SearchSearch
Author Message
Alex TR
New member
Username: _spider

Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 07:24 pm:   

I send sms via SMPP connect with delivery reciept = 1. If the given mobile operator is not supported, the message of a following kind comes:
2006-10-27 18:30:43,32494501325,Text,id:4542B1AD sub:001 dlvrd:000 submit date:200610271833 done date:200610271833 stat:REJECTD err:00B text:1,123401,SMSCReceiptMsgId=4542B1AD
With this report all is clear. But the report about delivery comes in such kind:
2006-10-27 18:30:53,32475356001,Binary,,123401,SMSCReceiptMsgId=4542B1AF
What does it mean? How can i understand does this sms delivered or not? What status of this sms?
Bryce Norwood - NowSMS Support
Board Administrator
Username: Bryce

Post Number: 6759
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 09:24 pm:   

I don't know.

I think I would need to see a more detailed log to understand the response that is actually coming in from your service provider. There must be something unusual about that response.

Specifically, I would like to see both an SMSDEBUG.LOG and SMPPDEBUG.LOG. Enabling the SMSDEBUG.LOG on the "Serial #" page of the configuration dialog will enable both of these logs.

After enabling these logs, send both messages that you describe above, and wait for the receipts to come back in. Then copy the SMSDEBUG.LOG and SMPPDEBUG.LOG ... and either post them in reply here, or send an e-mail to nowsms@now.co.uk with a subject line of "Attention: Bryce" with the files attached and a reference to this thread in the e-mail so that I know why I asked for the log files.
Alex TR
New member
Username: _spider

Post Number: 3
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 11:28 am:   

I have found the reason of a problem.
In SMPP Protocol Specification v3.4 in Appendix A - Delivery Receipt Format it is written:
"The informational content of an SMSC Delivery Receipt may be inserted into the
short_message parameter of the deliver_sm operation. The format for this Delivery Receipt
message is SMSC vendor specific but following is a typical example of Delivery Receipt report.
“id:IIIIIIIIII sub:SSS dlvrd:DDD submit date:YYMMDDhhmm done
date:YYMMDDhhmm stat:DDDDDDD err:E Text: . . . . . . . . .” and so on...
In uploaded pictures the image is copied from Ethereal sniffer for 2 sent sms. Undelivered sms is ok! There is the information about delivery in a field "message" with a length "message_length".
But, delivered sms does not contain the field "message"! Our GSM operastor can correctly specify the status of the message in a field "message_state" (tlv). How to configure NowSMS on checking status of sms in this field?
Bryce Norwood - NowSMS Support
Board Administrator
Username: Bryce

Post Number: 6773
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 08:51 pm:   

Hi Alex,

Based upon the earlier log, that is what I expected, but I wanted to see this type of detail for confirmation.

NowSMS does use and check the "message_state" field.

If you were connected via an SMPP client, we would be including these optional parameters.

I assume you are processing the delivery reports via a 2-way command? That could be a problem, and we need a better way of routing receipts to a 2-way command instead of just relying on the message text. Is this the case? Are you using a 2-way command to process the receipts? I want to make sure that I understand how this particular receipt format causes you a problem.

-bn
Alex TR
New member
Username: _spider

Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 12:39 pm:   

For inquiry status of the message I register field DefaultDelReceipt=yes in smsgw.ini. Our GSM operator informs the status of the message in a field "message state". How I can look contents of this field in NowSMS?
P.S. Sorry for my english)))
Alex TR
New member
Username: _spider

Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 06:16 pm:   

Bryce, your help about this question is very important to me!