[Mark Eichin] > For a time-boxed effort, I believe 256 is better than 128 (RFC-1035 > defines the limit in terms of wire-encoding of the DNS message rather > than the user-visible values (section 3.1, "To simplify > implementations") - there's also a 63 byte limit for "labels" but that's > just a single name-part and doesn't help here.)
I do not disagree. Perhaps you can come up with a better patch? One without a hardcoded limit would be even greater. :) -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
