Bug#141507: sntop: 32 char hostname limit is wrong/evil

[Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>]

[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