25 Sep
2018
25 Sep
'18
12:24 a.m.
On 24 Sep 2018, at 23:04, Alex Balashov
<abalashov(a)evaristesys.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:46:44PM +0100, Ben Hood wrote:
You are absolutely correct, but I don’t think that is what I wrote (might be a typo from
me?). I was trying to produce:
Contact: <sip:2018092423082500003@81.x.x.x>
Which I have now achieved by adding
msg_apply_changes();
after the invocation of subst_hf().
Seems that the SIP buffer needs to be explicitly finalised before transport.
However, my theory about patching the Contact header to make the remote system happy is
wrong - the 200 OK is still not ACK’ed. So I need to look into the NAT’ing a bit more to
see what might be going on - but this is a different question to how to use subst_hf().
Many thanks for helping me out with this, very much appreciated.
I was trying (as a temporary hack) to mangle this
to become
Contact: <sip:2018092417381900003@81.x.x.x
<sip:2018092417381900003@81.x.x.x>>
But that's not grammatically valid…