27 Dec
2008
27 Dec
'08
11:12 p.m.
On Saturday 27 December 2008 16:53:34 Mat Johns wrote:
I agree that it adds another layer of complexity, but I don't agree that
there's no easy way to provide "debug info". I think you're in exactly
the
same boat whether you use HTTP or SMTP for an interface if your network or
SMS provider fails. Most MTAs have extensive logging if there is a need to
debug -- they're pretty tried and tested.
Running an MTA (rather than ssmtp etc) means you will have queueing and
message retries provided in case your SMS provider falls over. It's also
easy to test and switch providers if necessary with little change.
--
Dominic Cleal
dominic(a)computerkb.co.uk
Like most
providers, they have APIs if you want something more.
Heh yes, however I in fact work for one such a company [1]. We are
probably a little out of your target volume bracket (however I'm not
the sales side, hence the bad pitch). One of our more popular
interfaces is quite simply a HTTP based one [2]. I would suggest if
you are using this for server monitoring, adding in the extra layer of
SMTP will just add complexity to the issue as there is no easy way of
providing debug info if your network / mta / sms provider; falls over.