You need to enable log-level=0 in config. There are a lot of reasons for
SMSC rejecting the message. Can be local kannel config (allow/deny SMSC) or
far-end SMSC issue (TON/NPI settings issue, masking, etc).


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM, [Digital^Dude] ® <millennium....@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Otandeka Simon Peter <sotand...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> What is your debug level set to?
>> Just share those bearerbox logs and kannel conf (you can hash out the
>> important fields)
>>
>> I cannot set it to debug level because of the high traffic volume. I'm
> working on log-level=1
> Can't I get a generic list of cases where kannel would mark an sms as
> failed? This should have been mentioned in the userguide btw...
>
>> @sotandeka
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM, [Digital^Dude] ® <
>> millennium....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The source/destination address is correct. SMPP link is stable and it
>>> didn't throttle at the time the submit_sm was made. The same sms body,
>>> source, destination is made after every 30 minutes.
>>> But it failed once. Bearerbox have pretty much nothing to say except
>>> "Failed Send SMS" and the standard details of a correct "Sent SMS".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Otandeka Simon Peter <
>>> sotand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please share your bearerbox logs.
>>>> There are many reasons as to why an SMS would fail. Most probable
>>>> reason is a invalid source address.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @sotandeka
>>>> +256 716 801 124
>>>> Senior Programmer in VAS Mobile services, ERP, Health and Web-based
>>>> Systems.
>>>> Experienced Linux System Administrator and Open Source Developer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, [Digital^Dude] ® <
>>>> millennium....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone shed some light on the possible reasons why bearerbox would
>>>>> mark an sms as FAILED?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it fail it when an smsc doesn't send submit_sm ack?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to