Hi all,
Has anyone tried using the "deferred" parameter with an SMPP link?
User-Guide puts a question mark on it, so I assume that means "not
tested".
I've tried with some SMPP links we have without success: the messages
get delivered without any delay, blatantly ignoring the "deferred"
paramete
Yes it's tested and used. Take a look to cvs user guide
(http://www.kannel.org/download/kannel-userguide-snapshot/userguide.html)
deferrednumber (minutes) Optional. If given, the SMS center will
postpone the message to be delivered at now plus this many minutes.
Note: you must hav
MartÃn,
I've read the user-guide (a few thousand times perhaps ;) ) and
noticed the "?" on the SMPP protocol. That lead me to think that it
wasn't tested. My unsuccesful trying didn't help...
It was an 1.4.0 at the time of testing. I'll do a new round of tests
this week with a new snapshot, mayb
I've upgraded Kannel to latest CVS release, 20060621 and I still can't
defer the messages.
I've tried with a simple message:
http://myhost:myport/cgi-bin/sendsms?username=myuser&password=mypass&from=1234&to=1234567890&smsc=mysmsc&text=test&deferred=1
But the message gets delivery inmediately.
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Alejandro Guerrieri
Sent: donderdag 22 juni 2006 1:04
To: users@kannel.org
Subject: Re: deferred parameters
I've upgraded Kannel to latest CVS release, 20060621 and I still can't
defer the messages.
I've tried with a simple
PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Rene Kluwen
Sent: donderdag 22 juni 2006 2:14
To: Alejandro Guerrieri; users@kannel.org
Subject: RE: deferred parameters
SMPP:
7.1.1.1 Absolute Time format
This is the default format used by SMPP. Scheduled delivery times and expiry
times are
specified in their global UTC format,
tm.tm_hour, tm.tm_min, tm.tm_sec);
}
As far as I can see, this is correct.
Still there should be some kind of bug here, because if the log that you
show is a pdu from posting the link that is just above the log, the
schedule_delivery_time should be "060621234907000+" (not
Alejandro Guerrieri
Sent: donderdag 22 juni 2006 5:34
To: users@kannel.org
Subject: Re: deferred parameters
Yep, I think that's how it should be...
I've made a few more tests with increasing deferred values (0, 1, 60
and 600), here are the results:
deferred=0 -> 2006-0
i 2006 5:34
To: users@kannel.org
Subject: Re: deferred parameters
Yep, I think that's how it should be...
I've made a few more tests with increasing deferred values (0, 1, 60
and 600), here are the results:
deferred=0 -> 2006-06-21 23:19:59 -> "060622021959000+"
deferr
