Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #20992 > unrolled thread

Slow message send

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-22 02:46 -0700
    Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-22 02:47 -0700
    Re: Slow message send Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-22 11:04 +0100
      Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 06:31 -0700
        Re: Slow message send "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-23 19:23 +0200
          Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-24 04:34 -0700
    Re: Slow message send "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2026-06-22 07:28 -0400
      Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 06:53 -0700
    Re: Slow message send VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-06-22 12:01 -0500
      Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 07:18 -0700
        Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 07:20 -0700
          Re: Slow message send VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-06-23 12:34 -0500
            Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-24 05:38 -0700
              Re: Slow message send VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-06-24 17:18 -0500
        Re: Slow message send VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-06-23 12:02 -0500
          Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-24 05:48 -0700
            Re: Slow message send Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-06-24 09:10 -0700
              Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-25 05:20 -0700
                Re: Slow message send Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-06-25 09:15 -0700
                  Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-26 06:24 -0700
                    Re: Slow message send Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-06-26 11:46 -0700
                      Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-26 22:45 -0400
                        Re: Slow message send Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-06-27 11:27 -0700
                      Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-26 22:50 -0400
                        Re: Slow message send VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-06-26 23:44 -0500
                          Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-27 06:59 -0400
                            Re: Slow message send "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-27 14:09 +0200
                              Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-27 10:33 -0400
                      Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-28 00:55 -0700
            Re: Slow message send VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-06-24 17:15 -0500
              Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-25 05:21 -0700
    Re: Slow message send Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-06-22 19:44 +0200
      Re: Slow message send Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-22 19:03 +0100
        Re: Slow message send Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2026-06-22 20:15 +0200
          Re: Slow message send Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-06-22 12:01 -0700
            Re: Slow message send "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-22 21:31 +0200
            Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 07:22 -0700
              Re: Slow message send "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 22:34 +0800
              Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-25 09:38 -0400
                Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-25 10:28 -0400
                  Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-25 11:45 -0400
                    Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-26 06:28 -0700
                      Re: Slow message send "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-26 06:28 -0700
                        Re: Slow message send Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-26 09:56 -0400
            Re: Slow message send "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 22:34 +0800
    Re: Slow message send "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 03:13 +0800
    Re: Slow message send "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 14:51 +0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#21133

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 06:24:12 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Nobody wrote:
>> John C. wrote:
>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's gotten to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues 
>>>>> like this just to run this computer. 
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>
>>> What "what"?
>> 
>> "Spending an hour or more..."
>> 
>> You need a life.
>
>That's precisely the issue. I want a life that's free of having to spend
>so much time resolving computer issues. HTH.

But why waste it fretting over a momentary display from the software
telling you what it's up to?  As I mentioned, this pop-up seems to be
relatively new... so it's reasonable (but dangerous) to assume that
the momentary delay has already been there without the banner headline
to make you wonder.

This is a recurring theme with TB and Firefox; some minor change or
effect ties up the knickers of users demanding the software works
"exactly" to their demanded expectation.

Instead:

1.  Wake up in the morning (always a good thing) and make coffee.

2.  Turn on the computing device of choice.

3.  Open personally crucial apps... prolly browser, mail, and Usenet.

4.  Check mail for Important Items.

5.  Peruse personally and immediately-needed browser choices.

6.  After ten minutes, coffee will be ready.

7.  Go away and read the newspaper.

8.  Possibly return later to make sure Ffox and TB haven't alerted the
user to update.

9.  Actioning that takes five mins at most, even a full
uninstall/re-install, including backing up both profiles.

Wasting "an hour or more" amounts to a fixed-computer version of the
bozos wandering at their own peril on the streets/sidewalks with
phones in their phaces.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21138

On 6/26/2026 2:46 PM, Nobody wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 06:24:12 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Nobody wrote:
>>> John C. wrote:
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's gotten to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues 
>>>>>> like this just to run this computer. 
>>>>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>
>>>> What "what"?
>>>
>>> "Spending an hour or more..."
>>>
>>> You need a life.
>>
>> That's precisely the issue. I want a life that's free of having to spend
>> so much time resolving computer issues. HTH.
> 
> But why waste it fretting over a momentary display from the software
> telling you what it's up to?  As I mentioned, this pop-up seems to be
> relatively new... so it's reasonable (but dangerous) to assume that
> the momentary delay has already been there without the banner headline
> to make you wonder.
> 
> This is a recurring theme with TB and Firefox; some minor change or
> effect ties up the knickers of users demanding the software works
> "exactly" to their demanded expectation.
>

But at some point, a thing you observe can be borderline ridiculous,
and you have to say something.

Five seconds to prepare a 2.5 KB message. That's a "lot" of washing
and rinsing.

Back in the day, if we were using a comms program on a 6MHz processor,
it would have sent an NNTP post in a lot less time than this. Kermin
with his TRN4 gets better performance than this :-)

It's like a cupcake with a foot-thick coating of icing on top :-)
At some point you have to say "enough with the icing already".

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21148

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 22:45:29 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 6/26/2026 2:46 PM, Nobody wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 06:24:12 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's gotten to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues 
>>>>>>> like this just to run this computer. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What?
>>>>>
>>>>> What "what"?
>>>>
>>>> "Spending an hour or more..."
>>>>
>>>> You need a life.
>>>
>>> That's precisely the issue. I want a life that's free of having to spend
>>> so much time resolving computer issues. HTH.
>> 
>> But why waste it fretting over a momentary display from the software
>> telling you what it's up to?  As I mentioned, this pop-up seems to be
>> relatively new... so it's reasonable (but dangerous) to assume that
>> the momentary delay has already been there without the banner headline
>> to make you wonder.
>> 
>> This is a recurring theme with TB and Firefox; some minor change or
>> effect ties up the knickers of users demanding the software works
>> "exactly" to their demanded expectation.
>>
>
>But at some point, a thing you observe can be borderline ridiculous,
>and you have to say something.

But these are so prevalent, it requires the OP to claim, "It's gotten
to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues like
this just to run this computer."

Time to chill...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21139

On Fri, 6/26/2026 2:46 PM, Nobody wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 06:24:12 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Nobody wrote:
>>> John C. wrote:
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's gotten to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues 
>>>>>> like this just to run this computer. 
>>>>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>
>>>> What "what"?
>>>
>>> "Spending an hour or more..."
>>>
>>> You need a life.
>>
>> That's precisely the issue. I want a life that's free of having to spend
>> so much time resolving computer issues. HTH.
> 
> But why waste it fretting over a momentary display from the software
> telling you what it's up to?  As I mentioned, this pop-up seems to be
> relatively new... so it's reasonable (but dangerous) to assume that
> the momentary delay has already been there without the banner headline
> to make you wonder.
> 
> This is a recurring theme with TB and Firefox; some minor change or
> effect ties up the knickers of users demanding the software works
> "exactly" to their demanded expectation.

I turned off GLODA before sending the previous message (Settings : General)
and it only took 3 seconds for the Send, instead of 6.5 seconds.

That suggests GLODA is in the code path on a Send, and the Send is not
being queued for later.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21142

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 6/26/2026 2:46 PM, Nobody wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 06:24:12 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's gotten to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues 
>>>>>>> like this just to run this computer. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What?
>>>>>
>>>>> What "what"?
>>>>
>>>> "Spending an hour or more..."
>>>>
>>>> You need a life.
>>>
>>> That's precisely the issue. I want a life that's free of having to spend
>>> so much time resolving computer issues. HTH.
>> 
>> But why waste it fretting over a momentary display from the software
>> telling you what it's up to?  As I mentioned, this pop-up seems to be
>> relatively new... so it's reasonable (but dangerous) to assume that
>> the momentary delay has already been there without the banner headline
>> to make you wonder.
>> 
>> This is a recurring theme with TB and Firefox; some minor change or
>> effect ties up the knickers of users demanding the software works
>> "exactly" to their demanded expectation.
> 
> I turned off GLODA before sending the previous message (Settings : General)
> and it only took 3 seconds for the Send, instead of 6.5 seconds.
> 
> That suggests GLODA is in the code path on a Send, and the Send is not
> being queued for later.
> 
>    Paul

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/rebuilding-global-database

"The database is too big and needs to be reduced in size."

I suspect that means doing cleanup to remove ancient messages of no
value.  I've seen users keep every piece of crap they ever received,
including spam, appointment reminders, login notices, and anything and
everything.  They never do any maintenance, and figure a database can be
infinite in size, and never impacted on performance.

Instead of just deleting the database, and having it automatically
reconstructed, I would think first getting rid of all the dross, so it
is not included in any indexing, would reduce the index database.  Less
worthless crap to index, so don't rebuild an index with all the pointers
to that crap.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21143

On Sat, 6/27/2026 12:44 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 6/26/2026 2:46 PM, Nobody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 06:24:12 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's gotten to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues 
>>>>>>>> like this just to run this computer. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "what"?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Spending an hour or more..."
>>>>>
>>>>> You need a life.
>>>>
>>>> That's precisely the issue. I want a life that's free of having to spend
>>>> so much time resolving computer issues. HTH.
>>>
>>> But why waste it fretting over a momentary display from the software
>>> telling you what it's up to?  As I mentioned, this pop-up seems to be
>>> relatively new... so it's reasonable (but dangerous) to assume that
>>> the momentary delay has already been there without the banner headline
>>> to make you wonder.
>>>
>>> This is a recurring theme with TB and Firefox; some minor change or
>>> effect ties up the knickers of users demanding the software works
>>> "exactly" to their demanded expectation.
>>
>> I turned off GLODA before sending the previous message (Settings : General)
>> and it only took 3 seconds for the Send, instead of 6.5 seconds.
>>
>> That suggests GLODA is in the code path on a Send, and the Send is not
>> being queued for later.
>>
>>    Paul
> 
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/rebuilding-global-database
> 
> "The database is too big and needs to be reduced in size."
> 
> I suspect that means doing cleanup to remove ancient messages of no
> value.  I've seen users keep every piece of crap they ever received,
> including spam, appointment reminders, login notices, and anything and
> everything.  They never do any maintenance, and figure a database can be
> infinite in size, and never impacted on performance.
> 
> Instead of just deleting the database, and having it automatically
> reconstructed, I would think first getting rid of all the dross, so it
> is not included in any indexing, would reduce the index database.  Less
> worthless crap to index, so don't rebuild an index with all the pointers
> to that crap.
> 
 [Looks like other send failed, will try again...]

Turning it off in Settings, then you no longer care what state
the GLODA file is in.

We have other indexes on computers, which are a similar nuisance.
It's not like this is a novel imperfection in Thunderbird, this
kind of search capability comes with the same baggage as the rest.

GLODA is fine, as long as whatever passes for a "gather queue"
is triggered after the user Send is completed and the user can
continue to use the interface. They should be able to fix this,
without users having to monkey with the file. It requires doing
things in a different order. Right now, GLODA seems to be triggered
too early.

There are going to be multiple code paths in "Send", as you
can "Send" when in "Offline State" and that likely has some
nuisance-implications for GLODA as well.

There are people out there, with 200GB of files in their profile.
GLODA is unlikely to scale properly for something that large.
The Windows Inverted Index for example, Microsoft provides
helpful hints on size limits, like "try not to index more than
1 million files", even though NTFS can have 4 billion files.
At some point, the indexing process becomes too slow to be
practical (the tool is always found to be in the middle
of a Merge, every time you try to use it).

Files involved might be Drafts, Sent, Unsent Messages, nsemail,
and I presume GLODA is watching all of these. If GLODA could be
temporarily gated-off, it might be possible to take GLODA
off the main code path. Then it would not matter how
poorly curated the sqlite file was.

I know it's poorly curated, as my GLODA was returning hits
from the year 2011, and those don't belong there. Doing
a rebuild of it (delete sqlite) resulted in a file 60% of the previous size
(and nothing before the year 2023 shows up). And that 60% sized
file, is the one that got me a send of 6.5 to 7 seconds or so.
With GLODA off, Send is approximately 3 seconds, 1.5 seconds
of that is the "on-wire" portion, leaving 1.5 seconds
for text preparation.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21145

On 2026-06-27 12:59, Paul wrote:
> On Sat, 6/27/2026 12:44 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:


> Turning it off in Settings, then you no longer care what state
> the GLODA file is in.
> 
> We have other indexes on computers, which are a similar nuisance.
> It's not like this is a novel imperfection in Thunderbird, this
> kind of search capability comes with the same baggage as the rest.
> 
> GLODA is fine, as long as whatever passes for a "gather queue"
> is triggered after the user Send is completed and the user can
> continue to use the interface. They should be able to fix this,
> without users having to monkey with the file. It requires doing
> things in a different order. Right now, GLODA seems to be triggered
> too early.

This GLODA is not new, is it? Maybe was enabled by default recently?

    [ ]  Enable Global Search and Indexer

I tried it in my desktop machine years ago, IIRC. My desktop went 100% 
cpu for days, TB became unusable; I had to disable it.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21147

On Sat, 6/27/2026 8:09 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-06-27 12:59, Paul wrote:
>> On Sat, 6/27/2026 12:44 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Turning it off in Settings, then you no longer care what state
>> the GLODA file is in.
>>
>> We have other indexes on computers, which are a similar nuisance.
>> It's not like this is a novel imperfection in Thunderbird, this
>> kind of search capability comes with the same baggage as the rest.
>>
>> GLODA is fine, as long as whatever passes for a "gather queue"
>> is triggered after the user Send is completed and the user can
>> continue to use the interface. They should be able to fix this,
>> without users having to monkey with the file. It requires doing
>> things in a different order. Right now, GLODA seems to be triggered
>> too early.
> 
> This GLODA is not new, is it? Maybe was enabled by default recently?
> 
>    [ ]  Enable Global Search and Indexer
> 
> I tried it in my desktop machine years ago, IIRC. My desktop went 100% cpu for days, TB became unusable; I had to disable it.
> 

GLODA has been around for a while.

And the response of your desktop, sounds perfect :-)
Exactly what you expect from Indexing schemes.

The Windows one is just as bad. On the other machine,
if you delete the index, it takes all day to make
a new one.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21150

Nobody wrote:
> John C. wrote:
>> Nobody wrote:
>>> John C. wrote:
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's gotten to where I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues 
>>>>>> like this just to run this computer. 
>>>>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>
>>>> What "what"?
>>>
>>> "Spending an hour or more..."
>>>
>>> You need a life.
>>
>> That's precisely the issue. I want a life that's free of having to spend
>> so much time resolving computer issues. HTH.
> 
> But why waste it fretting over a momentary display from the software
> telling you what it's up to?  As I mentioned, this pop-up seems to be
> relatively new... so it's reasonable (but dangerous) to assume that
> the momentary delay has already been there without the banner headline
> to make you wonder.

I'm not talking simply about this single TB issue. I'm talking about it
in the context of other issues in other programs and in the OS.

> This is a recurring theme with TB and Firefox; some minor change or
> effect ties up the knickers of users demanding the software works
> "exactly" to their demanded expectation.
> 
> Instead:
> 1.  Wake up in the morning (always a good thing) and make coffee.
> 2.  Turn on the computing device of choice.
> 3.  Open personally crucial apps... prolly browser, mail, and Usenet.
> 4.  Check mail for Important Items.
> 5.  Peruse personally and immediately-needed browser choices.
> 6.  After ten minutes, coffee will be ready.
> 7.  Go away and read the newspaper.
> 8.  Possibly return later to make sure Ffox and TB haven't alerted the
>     user to update.
> 9.  Actioning that takes five mins at most, even a full
>     uninstall/re-install, including backing up both profiles.

Good for you. Sounds like you have it under control. However, not
everybody operates the same way you do.

> Wasting "an hour or more" amounts to a fixed-computer version of the
> bozos wandering at their own peril on the streets/sidewalks with
> phones in their phaces.
No idea what you're talking about here.

-- 
John C. I filter crossposts, various trolls & dizum.com. Doing this
makes this newsgroup easier to read & more on-topic. Take back the tech
companies from India & industry from China.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21102

"John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for trying to help me, VanguardLH. I really appreciate your
> efforts. But it's all just too much for me anymore. It's gotten to where
> I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues like this just to
> run this computer. I'm too old for this stuff anymore. I give up. Guess
> I'll just have to live with this pause every time I send an email.

I see winston posted in the Firefox newsgroup that he is encountering a
6.5 second delay on startup of Firefox.  No idea if related, but seems
suspicious nearly same delay in Firefox and Thunderbird, and with
Thunderbird using code from Firefox.  Shared code, shared symptom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21111

VanguardLH wrote:
> John C. wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for trying to help me, VanguardLH. I really appreciate your
>> efforts. But it's all just too much for me anymore. It's gotten to where
>> I spend an hour or more every day dealing with issues like this just to
>> run this computer. I'm too old for this stuff anymore. I give up. Guess
>> I'll just have to live with this pause every time I send an email.
> 
> I see winston posted in the Firefox newsgroup that he is encountering a
> 6.5 second delay on startup of Firefox.  No idea if related, but seems
> suspicious nearly same delay in Firefox and Thunderbird, and with
> Thunderbird using code from Firefox.  Shared code, shared symptom.

Yes, I noticed that as well. However, he's using Free BSD and that might
make a difference in his case.

-- 
John C. I filter crossposts, various trolls & dizum.com. Doing this
makes this newsgroup easier to read & more on-topic. Take back the tech
companies from India & industry from China.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21021

John C. wrote:
> It used to be that whenever I sent an email or posted to a newsgroup,
> the message would almost instantly be sent.
> 
> Now, however, when I send an email or post a message I get a message saying:
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Sending message - (message subject here)                        X
> 
> Status: Assembling message...Done
> 
> Progress:--------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                                                         [Cancel]
> ______________________________________________________________________

What the heck is "assembled" there?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21023

Frank Miller wrote:

> What the heck is "assembled" there?

Bolting the headers, body and attachments together.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21025

Andy Burns wrote:
> Frank Miller wrote:
> 
>> What the heck is "assembled" there?
> 
> Bolting the headers, body and attachments together.

I've never seen a message of that kind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21027

On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 20:15:25 +0200, Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee>
wrote:

>Andy Burns wrote:
>> Frank Miller wrote:
>> 
>>> What the heck is "assembled" there?
>> 
>> Bolting the headers, body and attachments together.
>
>I've never seen a message of that kind.

It's been happening/appearing regularly for me for several versions of
TB; I can't put a time-frame/version number on it.  It's momentary and
personally of no concern.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21029

On 2026-06-22 21:01, Nobody wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 20:15:25 +0200, Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee>
> wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Frank Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> What the heck is "assembled" there?
>>>
>>> Bolting the headers, body and attachments together.
>>
>> I've never seen a message of that kind.
> 
> It's been happening/appearing regularly for me for several versions of
> TB; I can't put a time-frame/version number on it.  It's momentary and
> personally of no concern.

I get a popup that send is in progress, non detailed. Once recently it 
stuck there for half an hour till I cancelled and retried: went out 
instantly.

I am on the ESR line. 140.10

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21039

Nobody wrote:
> Frank Miller wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Frank Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What the heck is "assembled" there?
>>>
>>> Bolting the headers, body and attachments together.
>>
>> I've never seen a message of that kind.
> 
> It's been happening/appearing regularly for me for several versions of
> TB; I can't put a time-frame/version number on it.  It's momentary and
> personally of no concern.

For me, the delay is from around 5 seconds to as high as 10 (observed)
and maybe even longer.

That's simply unacceptable to me.

-- 
John C. I filter crossposts, various trolls & dizum.com. Doing this
makes this newsgroup easier to read & more on-topic. Take back the tech
companies from India & industry from China.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21040

On 6/23/2026 10:22 PM, John C. wrote:
> 
> For me, the delay is from around 5 seconds to as high as 10 (observed)
> and maybe even longer.
> 
> That's simply unacceptable to me.


Are you using some old x86 PCs? Pentium II?

Are you absolutely sure that you are not in an altered reality?

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21112

On 6/23/2026 10:22 AM, John C. wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
>> Frank Miller wrote:
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Frank Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What the heck is "assembled" there?
>>>>
>>>> Bolting the headers, body and attachments together.
>>>
>>> I've never seen a message of that kind.
>>
>> It's been happening/appearing regularly for me for several versions of
>> TB; I can't put a time-frame/version number on it.  It's momentary and
>> personally of no concern.
> 
> For me, the delay is from around 5 seconds to as high as 10 (observed)
> and maybe even longer.
> 
> That's simply unacceptable to me.
> 

So I suppose I should try a send into this group with TB 152.0 .

I have my video recorder running, and my Wireshark running.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21113

On 6/25/2026 9:38 AM, Paul wrote:
> On 6/23/2026 10:22 AM, John C. wrote:
>> Nobody wrote:
>>> Frank Miller wrote:
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> Frank Miller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the heck is "assembled" there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bolting the headers, body and attachments together.
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen a message of that kind.
>>>
>>> It's been happening/appearing regularly for me for several versions of
>>> TB; I can't put a time-frame/version number on it.  It's momentary and
>>> personally of no concern.
>>
>> For me, the delay is from around 5 seconds to as high as 10 (observed)
>> and maybe even longer.
>>
>> That's simply unacceptable to me.
>>
> 
> So I suppose I should try a send into this group with TB 152.0 .
> 
> I have my video recorder running, and my Wireshark running.

From clicking "Sent" to complete, is around 5 seconds.

Ryzen 5700G 8C 16T , lots of RAM,
  Win10 x86 in VBox, 3072MB RAM, TB152.0 x86 installed.

Unfortunately, the timestamp in Wireshark was not set to real time,
so I lost my correlation...

<indeterminate text prep time>
141.27 to 142.14 seconds
   AUTHINFO user xxxxxxxx
   AUTHINFO pass yyyyyyyy
   281 Authentication succeeded
142.14
   POST
   340 OK recommended Message-ID <111jb19$3q87m$1@dont-email.me>
   <Burst of one-sentence-per-packet
    142.2870 - 142.2930    42 packets in 0.006 seconds
   >
   <Burst of ACKS
    142.4125 - 142.4568    21 ACKS in 0.0443 seconds
   >
143.49
   240 Article Received

About 2.2 seconds on the wire, using a fairly inefficient
transmission scheme. Perhaps sending one line per packet
is some sort of goofy RFC ?

So now we have to figure out where the rest of the time went.
I'll time this one on the way out.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web