I'm a bit confused, so I have a few questions.
1. Can I send a WAP Push message via SMS?
2. I have a ppg service up and running, and have run test_ppg against it.
However, although I've reviewed the docs on openmobilealliance.org, I
continue to fail in my test. I've reviewed the 2 posts on this topic as
well, but nobody ever posted a successful PAP and SI document for me to
test with, and the Kannel documentation I used verbatim doesn't work either:
test_ppg output:
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [1] DEBUG: PAP COMPILER: doing semantic analysis for address type
unknown address
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [1] DEBUG: using defaults instead of anys
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [1] DEBUG: TEST_PPG: and type bad message response
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [1] INFO: TEST_PPG: In thread 1 1 succeeded, 0 failed
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [1] DEBUG: Thread 1 (test/test_ppg.c:push_thread) terminates.
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [0] INFO: TEST_PPG: 1 requests in 0.000000 seconds, inf requests
per second
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [0] DEBUG: Waiting for 3 (gwlib/http.c:write_request_thread) to
terminate
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [3] DEBUG: Thread 3 (gwlib/http.c:write_request_thread) terminates.
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [2] DEBUG: Thread 2 (gwlib/fdset.c:poller) terminates.
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [0] DEBUG: Immutable octet strings: 59.
wapbox.log output:
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [11] DEBUG: HTTP: Creating HTTPClient for `127.0.0.1'.
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [14] DEBUG: PPG: ip_allowed_by_ppg: ip found from allowed list
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [14] INFO: PPG: Accept request </wappush> from <127.0.0.1>
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [14] DEBUG: PPG: http_read_thread: pap multipart accepted
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [14] DEBUG: PAP COMPILER: unknown element
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [14] DEBUG: PPG: send_bad_message_response: telling pi
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [14] DEBUG: HTTP: Resetting HTTPClient for `127.0.0.1'.
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [14] WARNING: PPG: pap control entity erroneous, the request
unacceptable
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [10] DEBUG: HTTP: Destroying HTTPClient area 0x80c8120.
2004-05-09 18:27:28 [10] DEBUG: HTTP: Destroying HTTPClient for `127.0.0.1'.
Based on an email in the archive from Aarno:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02058.html
I looked to see if the MIME was sent correctly; since I don't seem to
control that, test_ppg does, I assume it is correct. Maybe a bad
assumption?
I didn't worry about the "using defaults instead of anys."
Then he said to look at the response, so I did. The problem is my si.xml,
which is copied directly out of the wapforum documentation on Service Indication:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE si PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD SI 1.0//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/si.dtd";>
<si>
<indication href="http://www.xyz.com/email/123/abc.wml";
created="1999-06-25T15:23:15Z"
si-expires="1999-06-30T00:00:00Z">You have 4 new emails</indication>
</si>
Kannel doesn't say what's wrong with it, it just says its wrong.
Does anyone know what is wrong with this si.xml document that is causing
Kannel to fart? Can someone post an si.xml document that does work with
kannel 1.3.1?
Thanks,
Beckman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.purplecow.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
