Webmail slow using Firefox?

[hutchingsp]

Looked on the forum and I've seen several people reporting problems but no sign of a solution.

I'm at work and can get to webmail.spamcop.net to check my mail at what I'd consider normal speeds if I use IE6. If I use Firefox, it gets there, but it absolutely crawls.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

We are using a firewall/proxy and whilst I guess it could be to do with that, I don't see how it would be selective about which browsers it works with as every other site I use is fine with Firefox (barring ones using IE specific content of course).

cheers,

Paul

[DavidT]

I'm at work and can get to webmail.spamcop.net to check my mail at what I'd consider normal speeds if I use IE6.  If I use Firefox, it gets there, but it absolutely crawls.

I just ran some "head to head" tests using both of those browsers on a home broadband (cable) connection and could detect absolutely no difference whatsoever in the speed of pages loading.

As for "several people reporting problem," I think there was only one other user recently citing FireFox as a potential problem (A.J.Mechelynck) and it was with reaching the "www.spamcop.net" site and not the webmail. In fact, there was another using who said that just the opposite was happening for them--that parsing using IE wasn't working in specific situations, but FireFox was...here's the topic link:

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3078&hl=

But neither of those topics dealt with the webmail. Could you supply a pointer to the topics of those other people who reported FireFox issues with webmail (hopefully, you're not referring to the user "sponge_bob" -- his issues seem to have been "between the keyboard and the chair")?

DT

[jefft]

I, too, use Firefox all of the time, both on Linux and Windows. I just haven't noticed any overall slowness issue. Nothing more than I've seen when using IE.

JT

[Merlyn]

If timing changes between two different browsers on the same machine than I would surely think it was that machines problem and not Spamcop's.

[sneth]

If timing changes between two different browsers on the same machine than I would surely think it was that machines problem and not Spamcop's.

23383[/snapback]

Ok well how about this. I have been using spamcop for pass-through for years. I almost never bother to go looking for filtered mail from people i later whitelist, and i clean out my held mail only when i have a few hours to kill, because I have *never* had acceptable performance from webmail. I have finally decided to look into it because it's finally reached the front of my peeve queue. It takes minutes per page to look through mail on a good day. To what deity do I owe a blood sacrifice?

[Wazoo]

Your "continuation" of this Discussion lacks any reference to the original subject .. FireFox versus IE ... on the other hand, what you describe seems to suggest an entry in the FAQ here .. WebMail Login problems & General Slowness, First things to check

[sneth]

Your "continuation" of this Discussion lacks any reference to the original subject .. FireFox versus IE ... on the other hand, what you describe seems to suggest an  entry in the FAQ here .. WebMail Login problems & General Slowness, First things to check

34430[/snapback]

Fair enough; though as a Firefox user I had thought this thread might offer some insight. I did try IE just now though, and it's just as bad. I appreciate the reference to the FAQ; I've switched off the move to trash folder because of it, but unless I'm missing something, that only makes things worse because I can't delete and purge in one operation. Regardless, my problem is not with logging in; I empty my trash before logging out anyway.

I'll admit I do see improvement as the held mail list gets shorter, but having used the same email address for ten years, i can accumulate a very large quantity of spam in a short time. Getting a partial list of messages from a mailbox with thousands in it just shouldn't take so long. Furthermore, when I attempt to reduce the pain by displaying more messages on a page it gets worse, because whatever java scri_pt is happening behind the toggling of selection checkboxes gets really slow. I write software for a living, and both problems just reek of n^2 algorithm foolishness, or a complete lack of indexing.

[StevenUnderwood]

I write software for a living, and both problems just reek of n^2 algorithm foolishness, or a complete lack of indexing.

34434[/snapback]

Offer your services to the Hoard IMP people, the ones that wrote the IMAP client known as SpamCop webmail.

[Jeff G.]

Hoard

34443[/snapback]

That's "Horde". Anyway, if you want quick access to your Held Mail mailbox/Folder just for picking out the false positives, I suggest running an IMAP client on your own computer and connecting to imap.spamcop.net. Once the mail is downloaded, you should be able to access, peruse, search, and delete it very quickly. Please see Jeff G.'s Guide to accessing SpamCop email using OE and IMAP if you use OE, or the "IMAPping" section of Getting Mail From The SpamCop Email System for more generic instructions. Thanks!

[Windrider6]

I only noticed this recently during Christmas vacation when I used webmail extensively for the first time. Using IE, everything seems normal, fast. When I got home, I tried to use webmail using Firefox, and it is just so slow.

Even just loading the page http://webmail.spamcop.net/ is very slow with Firefox.

I had to reinstall everthing on my father's computer, so once that was done (a clean install of Win XP), I tested the webmail with Firefox. It is still slow. I hadn't even loaded any extensions yet in Firefox. (adding extensions affected nothing)

I cleared out the trash in webmail. Still slow.

It doesn't make any sense why the same website should be fast with one browser, and slow with another.

I have tested this on 3 computers so far, and they all show the same behavior WRT SpamCop webmail.

Anyone else seeing this? Any ideas as to what might cause this?

Moderator Edit: Merged this posting into an existing Topic on the same subject.

PM sent to advise of Move/Merge.

[Wazoo]

Using IE, everything seems normal, fast.  When I got home, I tried to use webmail using Firefox, and it is just so slow.

I can't help but stumble a bit over the included phrase "when I got home" .... can't quite make out exactly if this could be a critical item or not .... different location, computer, connection, ISP .... there's a lot there to try to factor in ...

I had to reinstall everthing on my father's computer, so once that was done (a clean install of Win XP), I tested the webmail with Firefox.  It is still slow.  I hadn't even loaded any extensions yet in Firefox.  (adding extensions affected nothing)

Unfortunately, forced into guessing mode here also. Did you do this "at home" .. at your father's ..??? In this paragraph, you dropped the 'comparison' reference, only talking about webmail being slow. Maybe you meant to do this, focusing on FF, but from this side of the screen, I'm not sure.

You didn't mention the version of FF installed. I'm personally still amazed that there is/was so much traffic on display issues with version 1.5 all over the 'net' but that version was mover to 'Final' and placed on the main page for downloading as "the" download for all .... that said, as above, my experience while troubleshooting other user's accounts, I couldn't come up with a speed difference issue between my use of IE6 or FF1.0.x ....????

It doesn't make any sense why the same website should be fast with one browser, and slow with another.

I have tested this on 3 computers so far, and they all show the same behavior WRT SpamCop webmail.

Anyone else seeing this?  Any ideas as to what might cause this?

39216[/snapback]

Now that you've pulled in other systems (but left out some other things) there's still the setup/configuration differences to be accounted for. For example, the caching of "history" / web-page elements. IE may be set up to cache all that stuff, so a re-visit to the page uses that local cache copy. FF may be setup to clear cache/history (or limited temporary file storage) such that each visit requires a complete reload of the entire page ..... versions of java scri_pt engines involved ... on and on .. just saying that things may not be quite as clear as simply stating IE vs. FF and leaving it there ....

[agsteele]

I only noticed this recently during Christmas vacation when I used webmail extensively for the first time.  Using IE, everything seems normal, fast.  When I got home, I tried to use webmail using Firefox, and it is just so slow.

39216[/snapback]

I guess that one of the problems in resolving this kind of issue is that we compare apples with oranges.

I can categorically say that on my machine runing Win2k on a cable modem connection I see no significant difference using the webmail in Firefox (my default browser) and IE6 (only used when I'm forced to).

But there are still many potential differences...

- I clear my mailbox using POP3 on a regular basis so there is rarely anything more than one or two messages waiting in new mail to be sorted and displayed when logging into the webmail interface.

- I empty my held mail folder more often than I ever log-in to webmail so this is generally more or less empty.

- I invariably click the empty trash button when I do access webmail so this folder is generally empty as well.

It is possible that the reports are for users who, for example only, use their SpamCop Email account via IMAP and therefore store a lot of Email in potentially complex folder structures.

So without a great deal more data, I suggest we can only have a works for me/doesn't work for me exchange which isn't very useful in resolving the problem

Andrew

[Windrider6]

OK ... Details!

1. I was across the country visiting my sister, so I accessed SpamCop webmail using her computer, using IE (cable modem). Everything was normal. I did not have a chance to use FireFox on her computer, because she didn't have it installed.

2. My father and I live in the same small town, using different computers, both using wireless highspeed Internet. I tested using SpamCop webmail on both our computers, using both FireFox 1.5, and IE (latest version). It was consistent on both computers that SpamCop webmail was fast with IE, but slow with Firefox. On both computers, the FireFox cache is large (50 MB), and the load speed did not change, even if I had just been to the page.

3. For both my father and I, we check and clear out our Held Mail folders often (several times a day for me, at least once a day for Dad), using http://mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog. We also use POP3 to retrieve our mail about every 5 minutes, so the InBox is generally empty.

4. My father's computer was screwed up, so I did a clean reinstall of everything. When I tested SpamCop webmail with FireFox 1.5 and with IE again, same results.

5. For this testing (on both our computers), I emptied the Trash. It had no effect on the problem.

6. I am a "computer guy/guru" in my small town, and one of my clients wanted to try FireFox, so I installed it on their computer. Same small town, same wireless highspeed Internet. I tested SpamCop webmail on their computer using both FireFox 1.5, and IE: same results. And yes, I did make sure that the cache was large.

7. I have not yet found ANY other website that has different load speeds depending on which browser loads it.

Now, there is a commonality here: Same small town and same wireless highspeed Internet connection. I don't see how that could affect page load speed using different browsers, though. As far as the ISP is concerned, it doesn't know what program asks for certain data, nor does it care.

I have done what I can to test using different computers, and will continue to test on other computers when I have a chance. Unfortunately, many people just don't want to try FireFox, them being limited in their knowledge of computers, and are just barely able to use IE.

Since the general consensus is that most everyone else do not have this problem, I guess I have to assume that SpamCop webmail is OK, but I still wonder.

So, is that enough details for you? Let's see... what else?

Cookies & Popups: All cookies & popups are allowed for all SpamCop webpages.

Java & java scri_pt are enabled.

Image loads are always allowed for all SpamCop webpages.

All three security protocols are allowed (SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TSL 1.0). Testing by disallowing any one or all of these protocols makes no difference.

What I see:

When I first login to webmail, I see the Inbox and Empty Trash icons right away, a delay, then the rest of the top line of icons. Then another delay, then the rest of the page. This pattern of loading is consistent with every SpamCop webmail page I load in FireFox.

Just tested page load times with FireFox 1.5:

- It just took 35 seconds to complete loading of the Options page.

- It took 18 seconds to logout.

- Took 1-2 seconds to load "http://mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog"

- Clicked on Webmail tab, and it took 18 seconds to load the login page.

- Logging in, and it took 36 seconds to finish displaying the Inbox (which is empty, as is the Trash)

When doing all these with IE, the response time is practically instantaneous. It is less than a second for each pageload.

BTW: My ISP uses the same webmail program, and there are no delays when using it, like there is with SpamCop webmail. Of course, there are less hops to use it, than SpamCop webmail (I can't tell how many hops, since I get no response when I ping or traceroute my ISP: xplornet.com ... Interesting! ).

[agsteele]

So, is that enough details for you?

Just tested page load times with FireFox 1.5:

- It just took 35 seconds to complete loading of the Options page.

- It took 18 seconds to logout.

- Took 1-2 seconds to load "http://mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog"

- Clicked on Webmail tab, and it took 18 seconds to load the login page.

- Logging in, and it took 36 seconds to finish displaying the Inbox (which is empty, as is the Trash)

39250[/snapback]

Thanks for taking time to fill in the gaps. I was hoping that there would be something clearly different for your usage than mine - but we clearly have similar approaches to use. So, other than the small town, ISP and wireless Internet connection there is nothing.

Based on your description I went back and tried my connection again with both Firefox and IE. And I can agree that Firefox is slightly slower but it is one or two seconds at most and I would say it seems to be the way the pages are being assembled in the background as the content is downloaded. I certainly am not experiencing the time lags you mention. Perhaps 5 secs in IE and maybe 7secs or 8secs at most in Firefox.

Could your ISP be caching the pages and could Firefox be slower and grabbing the stuff from cache than IE? I avoid all Internet caches.

I know this must be frustrating. As a committed Firefox user I'd be mighty frustrated if my browsing experience was different and impaired.

Have you considered raising the issue with the Firefox deveopers or even looking at bugzilla to see if anyone else has reported similar issues and identified a solution?

Might be worthwhile.

Andrew

[btech]

I have FireFox & Mozilla as my main browsers and I can tell you that they both load precipitously faster than IE does on my older HP box.

I do find, however, there are periods when FF loads SCMail faster than others, even when I've tested my Comcast connection and found the same bandwidth.

[Windrider6]

...

Could your ISP be caching the pages and could Firefox be slower and grabbing the stuff from cache than IE?  I avoid all Internet caches.

...

Have you considered raising the issue with the Firefox deveopers or even looking at bugzilla to see if anyone else has reported similar issues and identified a solution?

Might be worthwhile.

Andrew

39256[/snapback]

I don't know much about ISPs cacheing webpages, but why would they cache pages that require a login to view? For that matter, it would be pointless to cache webmail pages that change constantly.

I just checked Bugzilla, and there's nothing there about this problem. Since I have only observed the problem with SpamCop webmail, I'm not sure that anyone there would care.

I'm thinking that I'm beginning to not care so much now. As much as I like to solve such problems, I don't have the time or energy to do so now. I generally don't use SpamCop webmail. When I do, it is usually only to change SpamCop options, and I can do that with IE.

[agsteele]

I'm thinking that I'm beginning to not care so much now.  As much as I like to solve such problems, I don't have the time or energy to do so now.  I generally don't use SpamCop webmail.  When I do, it is usually only to change SpamCop options, and I can do that with IE.

39267[/snapback]

I think I'd feel the same myself

Andrew

[bbcentral]

I've been having exactly this problem. It is nothing to do with anyone's computer, ISP, configuration etc, it is purely a problem between Firefox and Spamcop's webmail (probably Horde).

Basically, when you load any page on the spamcop webmail, all the code for the page loads instantly (you can click view source and view the code right down to the closing HTML tags). However only part of the page loads, the background colors on the login page, and the menu once you are logged in. The rest takes anywhere from 10-30 seconds to display. When you click on an email, it opens but you can only see the menu right away, up to 30 seconds later the message will load. I sometimes bypass this by viewing the source of the page to read the email, but it's not pretty or easy.

I have the Web Developer toolbar installed, I tried loading the page without stylesheets, didn't work. I switched off images, again no difference.

I DISABLED java scri_pt AND THE PAGE LOADED RIGHT AWAY!

(excuse the uppercase)

I can't tell which part of the java scri_pt code is causing the pages to load so slowly, but it is definitely something in the java scri_pt. I am not getting any errors, just incredibly slow pages.

So to anyone else having the problem, you're not crazy, it's a real problem and there is nothing anyone here can do about it, except for Spamcop.

The java scri_pt could be connecting to another server perhaps, and maybe Firefox is waiting for the result of that connection to continue rendering the page? I don't know.

All I know is it took 22 seconds to load the login page, 7 seconds to display the menu after login, and another 20 seconds after that to show the list of emails.

It seems to be right here:

<scri_pt language="java scri_pt" type="text/java scri_pt" src="/horde/services/java scri_pt.php?file=open_help_win.js&app=horde"></scri_pt>

[bbcentral]

Looks like I was right

Try accessing this URL:

http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/services/...in.js&app=horde

It loads slowly in BOTH browsers, however in Firefox this causes the page to hang, whereas IE seems to ignore it and continue loading the page.

I am running Horde on my own server and tried this, the java scri_pt page loaded instantly. Seeing as java scri_pt.php isn't a regular file, there must be a PHP function used inside it that is causing the page to hang so badly.

Here's an example of a quick loading page:

http://uscoast.net/horde/services/javascri...in.js&app=horde

See that? instant!

compare it with Spamcop:

http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/services/...in.js&app=horde

It's a Spamcop issue I think. I almost posted a bug report on the Horde website, before I worked this out.

[StevenUnderwood]

Here's an example of a quick loading page:

http://uscoast.net/horde/services/javascri...in.js&app=horde

See that? instant!

compare it with Spamcop:

http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/services/...in.js&app=horde

It's a Spamcop issue I think. I almost posted a bug report on the Horde website, before I worked this out.

41363[/snapback]

Both of those links offered to download files for me immediately, not render any page.

[bbcentral]

I should clarify, although the content displays instantly in both the above links, in the first link only it finishes loading right away. In the spamcop page you will notice it still says "transferring data from webmail.spamcop.net...", even though it ends with the helpwin.focus();

(In IE it says "Opening page http://webmail etc")

There must be something in the PHP code, because the server isn't sending the "end of file" to the browser, causing both browsers to continue waiting for it to download. I'd like to take a look inside this file sometime, maybe I'll try downloading Horde/IMP and locate what could be causing it. I'm just guessing really, I've only narrowed down where the problem is coming from.

[StevenUnderwood]

I should clarify, although the content displays instantly in both the above links, in the first link only it finishes loading right away. In the spamcop page you will notice it still says "transferring data from webmail.spamcop.net...", even though it ends with the helpwin.focus();

(In IE it says "Opening page http://webmail etc")

There must be something in the PHP code, because the server isn't sending the "end of file" to the browser, causing both browsers to continue waiting for it to download. I'd like to take a look inside this file sometime, maybe I'll try downloading Horde/IMP and locate what could be causing it. I'm just guessing really, I've only narrowed down where the problem is coming from.

41365[/snapback]

No, Now I have downloaded both to a safe machine (I don't download anything that someone I don't know asks me to otherwise) and found both completed almost immediately.

Spamcop Downloaded: 1.05KB in 2 sec

USCoast.net Downloaded: 1.09KB in 1 sec

It take twice as long, but not unreasonably, and can easly be explained by loads and network traffic. uscoast is also several hops closer to me than the spamcop server. I suspect it might be a larger difference for you.

I am using IE Version 6.0.2900.2180

EDIT: In further testing, I have not had any difference in the download times having done it 3 times each, every download except that first one has been 1 second, even if I clear cache or restart IE.

EDIT2: Comparing the 2 files, the only differences I am seeing is the url definition and the uscoast version is using 'resizable,width=' while spamcop is using 'width=' toward the bottom of the file.

[bbcentral]

I just tried it at home and this time it seems to be working. I'm using Firefox as well, but it's a different ISP.

Perhaps something to do with proxies or firewalls. I don't know, but it's only that one file. If it was only me experiencing it then I wouldn't have mentioned it, but seeing as other people are also having the exact same problem then I think it's probably worth looking into.

So, is that enough details for you?

Just tested page load times with FireFox 1.5:

- It just took 35 seconds to complete loading of the Options page.

- It took 18 seconds to logout.

- Took 1-2 seconds to load "http://mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog"

- Clicked on Webmail tab, and it took 18 seconds to load the login page.

- Logging in, and it took 36 seconds to finish displaying the Inbox (which is empty, as is the Trash)

This is identical to what I'm experiencing. The only pages once logged in that work instantly are the popups, such as "message Source".

[jev]

A large part of it seems to be location/ISP, though some could very well be what Spamcop has.

When I access Webmail at work, the pages load very slowly -- sometimes I can load and read a couple other pages from other places while waiting for Webmail to become available. When I access Webmail from home, it is all but instant.

[jev]

I did some more checking myself, and it *is* much faster going between pages with JS turned off in the options, especially at work. The only bummer is that it seems a lot of things are done via JS. So things like replies, forwards, viewing attachments, etc. all stop working if you turn JS off completely and get the speed boost.

So it seems I can either have it fast and broken, slow and working, or keep swapping between the two through the Tools menu... I think for the time being, I'm going to end up sticking with slow and working, since I hate keeping on going back through the menu to switch settings.