Yes, what is really odd is that they are requiring the "+" to be in the Request-URI, From:, To: and the P-Asserted-Identity.
 
So far I have added the following to my INVITE handler route.
 
       prefix("+"); # add "+" to Request URI
       subst('/To:(.*)sip:(.*)@(.*)/To:\1sip:+\2@\3/ig'); # add "+" to To: URI
 
I have already found one UA that will require some reply fixing, while others don't seem have a problem.
 
- Daryl


 
On 3/22/07, Jerome Martin <jmartin@longphone.fr> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 11:39 +0100, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Daryl Sanders wrote:
> I'd love to use uac_replace_to(), but to my knowledge it does not
> exist. I read through the UAC module docs and there is no mention of
> it.
> 
> Any other posibilities?
> 
> If I were to use subst(), can it be applied it in such a way that it
> does not cause problems with the dialog?

You have to catch everys reply and remove the + sign.

Further you have to check all in-dialog requests received from the PSTN 
provider and remove the + sign to, and catch every reply from the user's 
client to add the + sign again.


Mmmh. In order to prevent this (which is unavoidable if you change the To: header), you might try to use P-Asserted-Identity header instead. This works with most modern SIP gateways implementing RFC3325.

Jérôme Martin | LongPhone
Responsable Architecture Réseau
122, rue la Boetie | 75008 Paris
Tel :  +33 (0)1 56 26 28 44
Fax : +33 (0)1 56 26 28 45
Mail : jmartin @longphone.fr
Web : www.longphone.com