Anyone have seen this one before?
2002-01-16 13:55:45 [16] PANIC: gw/smpp_pdu.def:126: smpp_pdu_unpack:
Assertion `p->sm_length == (unsigned long)
octstr_len(p->short_message)' failed.
--
Andreas Fink
Fink-Consulting
--
Tel: +
Andreas Fink wrote:
>
> Anyone have seen this one before?
>
> 2002-01-16 13:55:45 [16] PANIC: gw/smpp_pdu.def:126: smpp_pdu_unpack:
> Assertion `p->sm_length == (unsigned long)
> octstr_len(p->short_message)' failed.
I guess "nop" would satisfy you?! :[
Stipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
HI
At 03:09 PM 1/16/02 +0100, Andreas Fink wrote:
>Anyone have seen this one before?
>
>
>2002-01-16 13:55:45 [16] PANIC: gw/smpp_pdu.def:126: smpp_pdu_unpack:
>Assertion `p->sm_length == (unsigned long) octstr_len(p->short_message)'
>failed.
I have had it but very seldom. Can you replicate it?
nuar 2002 18:46
> An: Andreas Fink; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Re: smpp panic at reception (dlr probably)
>
> HI
> At 03:09 PM 1/16/02 +0100, Andreas Fink wrote:
> >Anyone have seen this one before?
> >
> >
> >2002-01-16 13:55:45 [16]
Jörg Pommnitz wrote:
>
> I cannot comment on this exact problem, but it does not
> seem to warrant a panic.
>
> IMHO a defect PDU should be dropped without taking down
> all of Kannel.
I agree. Defect send-in messages should not break further operations
of Kannel.
Stipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Jörg Pommnitz wrote:
>>
>> I cannot comment on this exact problem, but it does not
>> seem to warrant a panic.
>>
>> IMHO a defect PDU should be dropped without taking down
>> all of Kannel.
>
>I agree. Defect send-in messages should not break further operations
>of Kannel.
>
I'll work on a
