search for: hrfinancial

...rong with reverse proxying icecast through apache? In my case, it’s just a measure to allow a secondary point of access to a stream from public wifi that only allows ports 80 and 443. Is it just a potential resource usage implication? > On Apr 7, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Humberto Rodriguez <sub at hrfinancial.com> wrote: > > Why not reproduce the stream using the <audio> element of HTML in a regular webpage? You could turn autoplay on and the strean would sound automatically on most browsers, not so on Google’s. > > Humberto > > > > From: Icecast <icecast-bo...

...ng icecast through apache? > In my case, it’s just a measure to allow a secondary point of access to a stream from public wifi that only allows ports 80 and 443. > Is it just a potential resource usage implication? > > >> On Apr 7, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Humberto Rodriguez <sub at hrfinancial.com <mailto:sub at hrfinancial.com>> wrote: >> >> Why not reproduce the stream using the <audio> element of HTML in a regular webpage? You could turn autoplay on and the strean would sound automatically on most browsers, not so on Google’s. >> >> Humberto...

...xying icecast through apache? > In my case, it's just a measure to allow a secondary point of access to a stream from public wifi that only allows ports 80 and 443. > Is it just a potential resource usage implication? > > On Apr 7, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Humberto Rodriguez <sub at hrfinancial.com> wrote: > > Why not reproduce the stream using the <audio> element of HTML in a regular webpage? You could turn autoplay on and the strean would sound automatically on most browsers, not so on Google's. > > Humberto > > FROM: Icecast <icecast-bounces at...

...ing icecast through apache? > In my case, it’s just a measure to allow a secondary point of access to a > stream from public wifi that only allows ports 80 and 443. > Is it just a potential resource usage implication? > > > On Apr 7, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Humberto Rodriguez <sub at hrfinancial.com> > wrote: > > Why not reproduce the stream using the <audio> element of HTML in a > regular webpage? You could turn autoplay on and the strean would sound > automatically on most browsers, not so on Google’s. > > Humberto > > > > *From:* Icecast <ic...

...he? >> In my case, it’s just a measure to allow a secondary point of access to a >> stream from public wifi that only allows ports 80 and 443. >> Is it just a potential resource usage implication? >> >> >> On Apr 7, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Humberto Rodriguez <sub at hrfinancial.com> >> wrote: >> >> Why not reproduce the stream using the <audio> element of HTML in a >> regular webpage? You could turn autoplay on and the strean would sound >> automatically on most browsers, not so on Google’s. >> >> Humberto >> >&...

Hi Thomas, Why not offer both? SSL is important so as not to be penalized by search engines that nowadays expect it on any website, more so when you have a form asking for sensitive information, as it encrypts the communication between browser and server. Having said that, there is no reason for you not to offer both https:// and http://, all you need to do is using different ports. For

Hello, I was wondering if someone here could help me out. I have a domain that I'm using for Icecast, let's use "domain.com" as an example. Icecast is running on port 80. The problem is that when I go to "domain.com" in my web browser, it brings up the web interface. I want to configure it so that instead of showing the status page, it immediately goes to one of my

Why not reproduce the stream using the <audio> element of HTML in a regular webpage? You could turn autoplay on and the strean would sound automatically on most browsers, not so on Google’s. Humberto From: Icecast <icecast-bounces at xiph.org> On Behalf Of John Molane Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 12:44 PM To: icecast at xiph.org Subject: [Icecast] Question about replacing the