gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
Hi. I'm running 'latest kannel cvs' (sep28) with a Falcom A2D1 modem, and the at smsc interface (*) It seems the modem/kannel is not acknowledging the incoming SMSs the way the telco SMSC (some kind of EMI2, I assume) wants it. Whenever I send an SMS from a regular mobile, two things happen: 1) it arrives alright within kannel. 2) the telco thinks it didn't, and sends the regular mobile a message saying 'Mobile text to 1234whatever sent 02.10.01 15.03.05 cannot be delivered because of error in the mobilephone (116)' (the text is really in danish, and I guess the 116 is a number of characters, not a return code, but I'm not sure). This behaviour must be partly dependent on the telco - some telcos don't send such a DLR back. But whatever, this is no good, since the user shouldn't I'm guessing it must somehow be related to the AT+CNMI command, that allows one to set how messages are received (and confirmed ?). Do anyone have suggestions for, what I should be looking at to get more understanding of how CNMI is/can be used ? The kannel I'm using says AT+CNMI=1,2,0,0,0 (*) I am not using AT2 yet (though I want to), since my attempts to use it rather effectively screwed up the gsm modem :-(
Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
Hi. This actually works, thank you ! (The sender now gets a 'message delivered' instead of 'problem with receiving device' message). They (kannel and the modem) sure do talk a lot, though. But, I'm curious: This workaround, is it generally needed because of a problem with falcom, or is it temporary because something else needs to be fixed ? I don't see a performance problem in polling a gsm_modem (it doesn't get messages that quick anyway), but I wish the kannel.log didn't grow when there is no traffic... Also, I'm still curious about the return codes...
Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
On 3 October 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi. This actually works, thank you ! If you are talking about my patches I sent the list, then a] This work around is for all modems. It uses modem memory for reception of SMSs and uses direct SMS sending to send SMSs. It tends to be more reliable. b] Andreas Fink has written the AT2 driver which uses SMS version two and has a few advantages because of that. I suggest he re-writes the list on how to set up that driver so we can all help debug it with him. c] I will have new patches as of tomorrow which fix a few more bugs and yeild the original AT driver even better then my last patches. The only way to loose SMSs is by sending and failing to send 4 times, as per the RETRIES variable, set in the smsc_at.c file. d] I require a nominee before I can patch the CVS tree ... would you / someone mind nominating me ? e] The new patches will stop the kannel log from growing when there are no incvoming / outgoing SMSs ... this was originally for debugging. > (The sender now gets a 'message delivered' instead of > 'problem with receiving device' message). > > They (kannel and the modem) sure do talk a lot, though. > > But, I'm curious: This workaround, is it generally needed > because of a problem with falcom, or is it temporary because > something else needs to be fixed ? >I don't see a performance problem in polling a gsm_modem > (it doesn't get messages that quick anyway), but > I wish the kannel.log didn't grow when there is no traffic... > > Also, I'm still curious about the return codes... > -- Matt Common computer data descriptions bitlicknibble byte
Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
Matt, I would like you to patch the at code and let at2 code from Andreas Fink. By the way maybe someone won't agree with this, but having an at3 is not so good. Anybody using at currently has any comments? Andrea
Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
Why is it that bad to have at3 ? Current AT module is buggy but it works, AT2 is worse cause sometimes my Siemens M20T just stop receiving any messages under it. I think adding AT3 till we get the perfect one is a good idea. I am willing to test the new At module which saves messages into a sim card. Thanks.
Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
Ok then Matt, at3 seems the best solution. Andrea - Original Message - From: "Alexei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC? > Why is it that bad to have at3 ? > Current AT module is buggy but it works, AT2 is worse cause sometimes my > Siemens M20T just stop receiving any messages under it. > I think adding AT3 till we get the perfect one is a good idea. > I am willing to test the new At module which saves messages into a sim card. > Thanks. > > >
Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
On 3 October 2001, Alexei wrote: > Why is it that bad to have at3 ? > Current AT module is buggy but it works, AT2 is worse cause sometimes my > Siemens M20T just stop receiving any messages under it. > I think adding AT3 till we get the perfect one is a good idea. > I am willing to test the new At module which saves messages into a sim card. > Thanks. Quite frankly, the current AT module is so buggy it is not even worth thinking about using. I believe that if people want an AT module which works in a similar way to the original but works, then they should switch to the AT2 module it was alot more reliable then the original AT module and that was weeks ago - by now it must be even better ! Tomorrow I am going to send out my latest patches which will alter the smsc_at.c and smsc_p.h files. -- Matt Common computer data descriptions bitlicknibble byte
RE: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC?
I'm still using the AT module (with a nokiaphone) because I have the following problem when I want to send an operator logo with the AT2 module : My logo is divided into 2 sms. The first one is sent correctly but the second always fails (status FAILED in the logs). With the AT module, it's working fine... I have no idea where it could come fom. Eric Guivarch -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]De la part de Matt Flax Envoye : mercredi 3 octobre 2001 14:47 A : Alexei Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: gsm-modem -AT+ CNMI / no confirmation back to SMSC? On 3 October 2001, Alexei wrote: > Why is it that bad to have at3 ? > Current AT module is buggy but it works, AT2 is worse cause sometimes my > Siemens M20T just stop receiving any messages under it. > I think adding AT3 till we get the perfect one is a good idea. > I am willing to test the new At module which saves messages into a sim card. > Thanks. Quite frankly, the current AT module is so buggy it is not even worth thinking about using. I believe that if people want an AT module which works in a similar way to the original but works, then they should switch to the AT2 module it was alot more reliable then the original AT module and that was weeks ago - by now it must be even better ! Tomorrow I am going to send out my latest patches which will alter the smsc_at.c and smsc_p.h files. -- Matt Common computer data descriptions bitlicknibble byte
