Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Samual Acorn wrote:

> On 13/01/07, sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > For the past four days or so it has been taking about 60 seconds to send
> > mail using pine or mutt.  Someone made some comment in the 'bboard' that I
> > could not follow, about smtp and spam causing the problem.  'mail' sends
> > immediately - can I access my inbox with it somehow?  I can use it to
> > send mail, but typing 'mail' tells me keesan has no mail.
> > Is there some
> > feature in mutt or pine that can be turned off to fix the problem?
>
> if ppl are using the same smtp server as you for spam it would cause
> delays... but if you are using sdf i doubt spam has any say in the
> matter... sending mail using 'mail' probably falls to a background
> process that takes 60 seconds that you dont see... if thats not the
> case then something else is set wrong in pine/mutt or they are having
> problems at whatever smtp server you are using...  -or- your modem is
> getting something hung in its data pipe... what state is 'CS' in on
> those 60 second delays?

sdf has no spam filter at all (unless you choose to dump all mail with 
html tags)  I use procmail (.procmailrc)

> in pines settings look for an option labeled 'assume-slow-link'... try that...
I just X'ed that in pine.

> > I have not figured out how to use bboard.
>
> not familiar with that one...
I posted a question there but cannot figure out how to read the replies.

> > I cannot receive list mail at my other shell account (it is too slow for
> > ibiblio) and would hate to use webmail.
>
> but yet.. another reason to use it... ;)

What other reason is there other than nothing else working?

> > For now I am replying to a minimum number of postings, and going off to my
> > other account to read emails for 60 sec each time I post something (or
> > reading a book).
> >
> > While I am here, could someone explain how listening to a wireless
> > broadcast of music over the internet uses more resources than listening to
> > a wireless broadcast of FM music?
>
> fluff from lee on that one? lol... ignore it.. it doesnt.. your
> computer would use the same amount of power waiting for 'press any key
> to continue' as it would playing an audio stream... as for the other

Would it somehow tie up bandwidth on the internet?

> systems involved in getting a stream to you... the mp3 encoder (which
> can be done with a low end home pc) is still running whether you are
> listening to it or not... so no power saved there... as for the
> routers along the backbone of the net that are carrying those TCP
> packets full of mp3 (or other) data to you -- if you arent using them
> someone else is... and since the monitor is on whether you are
> listening to music or reading your email (or more than likely both)
> then that has no factor either... and heres a kicker... considering
> that you need your monitor to see the email but not to hear the music
> you can turn your monitor off while listening and use less power
> listening to internet radio than you would reading email...

The computer cpu is still using some power, but most of the year I don't 
mind the heat.

> if lee is factoring in the 'retransmission' part then the inefficient
> area is the 1000+watt -limited coverage- vacuum tube based
> transmitter(s) that the FM station is using...
>
> if he would have said satellite radio (XM or sirius) which covers the
> whole continental USA with 3 solar powered satellites then i -might-
> have given it to him...

You can get their broadcasts via streaming audio, free.  They only had 
three classical stations one of which was opera, last I checked.  Mostly 
rock, just like FM radio.

> btw, check into more web-centric stations than retransmitted FM...
> less talk (or no talk) and no way for anyone to claim any
> "inefficiency" unless you are playing mp3s with the univac...
What is a web-centric station?

> as far as 24k streams cutting out on you on 56k thats a buffer
> problem.... a problem as in its not big enough... i use a buffer of

I am using the default mplayer buffer, which varies for each station.
Viewed with realplayer, I can see that the signal is highly variable.
I can try a larger buffer.

> 6mb (yes 6 megabytes) for internet radio... gives me more 'wiggle
> room' when visiting websites and when the phone line changes its mood
> (modem retrain)... may seem a bit big but it works... 1 mb may be
> better to start with tho as mplayer takes a while before it starts to
> play when using a buffer of 6mb (i normally use foobar2000 on windoze
> since i prefer AAC+ streams)... start at 1mb then work your way up if
> you still get cut-outs...

I used some other method to adjust buffer size, I think.
Will try this one.

> mplayer http://218.189.210.17:4802/ -cache 1024
>
> make sure when it starts playing that stream it uses a sample rate of
> 16000hz (stereo)... mplayer uses a buggy version of the mpg123
> decoder... which keeps wanting to start at 11500... (errors like; 'big
> values too big!' & 'cant rewind stream by xxx bits!')

I often get the 'can't rewind stream' but ignore it.
How do I specify the sample rate?

Let's see if this sends in less than 60 seconds with the new setting.

> > Sindi
>
> --
> --
> --sam
> --
> Web; http://mephitus.no-ip.org/
> Skype; Mephitus
> ICQ; 51687964
> --
> "When you've done something right, no one will be sure you've done
> anything at all." -- Futurama
> --
>
> -----------------------
> BasicLinux mailing list
> -----------------------
> http://www.basiclinux.com.ru
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/baslinux/
> ------------------------------------
> To exit, send subject=unsubscribe to
> baslinux-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org