Dear Outlook 2003 experts,

Outlook 2003 does not handle placements of signatures and quotes well,
in my opinion. No problem for new email messages. However, for
replies and forwards the placement is not what I want and there seems
to be no easy solution.

What I want on reply/forward is:

1) Start my reply above the quote, and
2) Place my signature below the quote (eg: bottom of message)

Other email programs like Thunderbird do this easily.

I would appreciate any tips or pointers on how to accomplish this.

Thank you all in advance...

You could try this freeward add-in:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/

--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook

*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please reply
only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***


"(E-Mail Removed)" wrote:

> Dear Outlook 2003 experts,
>
> Outlook 2003 does not handle placements of signatures and quotes well,
> in my opinion. No problem for new email messages. However, for
> replies and forwards the placement is not what I want and there seems
> to be no easy solution.
>
> What I want on reply/forward is:
>
> 1) Start my reply above the quote, and
> 2) Place my signature below the quote (eg: bottom of message)
>
> Other email programs like Thunderbird do this easily.
>
> I would appreciate any tips or pointers on how to accomplish this.
>
> Thank you all in advance...
>
>

Sorry, typo in my original reply...should be "freeware".

--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook

*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please reply
only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***


"(E-Mail Removed)" wrote:

> Dear Outlook 2003 experts,
>
> Outlook 2003 does not handle placements of signatures and quotes well,
> in my opinion. No problem for new email messages. However, for
> replies and forwards the placement is not what I want and there seems
> to be no easy solution.
>
> What I want on reply/forward is:
>
> 1) Start my reply above the quote, and
> 2) Place my signature below the quote (eg: bottom of message)
>
> Other email programs like Thunderbird do this easily.
>
> I would appreciate any tips or pointers on how to accomplish this.
>
> Thank you all in advance...
>
>

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear Outlook 2003 experts,
>
> Outlook 2003 does not handle placements of signatures and quotes well,
> in my opinion. No problem for new email messages. However, for
> replies and forwards the placement is not what I want and there seems
> to be no easy solution.
>
> What I want on reply/forward is:
>
> 1) Start my reply above the quote, and
> 2) Place my signature below the quote (eg: bottom of message)
>
> Other email programs like Thunderbird do this easily.
>
> I would appreciate any tips or pointers on how to accomplish this.
>
> Thank you all in advance...

Or you could just bottom-quote, as this is the suggested Usenet method.

--
Notan

Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

> Or you could just bottom-quote, as this is the suggested Usenet
> method.

I've heard of top-post (where you post above the quote from the message to
which you're replying) and bottom-post (where you post below a quote from
the message to which you're replying, such as what you and I have done), but
never "bottom-quote". USENET's suggested method (if one can say there is
any) is bottom-post, however, it can vary from group to group and from
client to client, since different clients have different default behaviors.
Personally, even if I weren't using a tool that helps bottom posting, I'd
still edit the message to post that way.
--
Brian Tillman

Brian Tillman wrote:
> Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>
>> Or you could just bottom-quote, as this is the suggested Usenet
>> method.
>
> I've heard of top-post (where you post above the quote from the message
> to which you're replying) and bottom-post (where you post below a
> quote from the message to which you're replying, such as what you and I
> have done), but never "bottom-quote". USENET's suggested method (if one
> can say there is any) is bottom-post, however, it can vary from group to
> group and from client to client, since different clients have different
> default behaviors. Personally, even if I weren't using a tool that helps
> bottom posting, I'd still edit the message to post that way.

I stand corrected... I meant to say "bottom-post."

Apparently, the brain and fingers were out of sync!

--
Notan

You're right about bottom posting being the long-standing Usenet convention;
however, top posting has gained popularity in many areas due to the fact that
many people don't know how to edit earlier parts of the thread so that the
thread doesn't get to be five miles long (or they don't have the time).
Also, top posting is much easier to deal with when reading messages on a
mobile device with a small screen and funky formatting -- just look at the
top and the quote below it and you're done.

--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook

*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please reply
only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***


"Notan" wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > Dear Outlook 2003 experts,
> >
> > Outlook 2003 does not handle placements of signatures and quotes well,
> > in my opinion. No problem for new email messages. However, for
> > replies and forwards the placement is not what I want and there seems
> > to be no easy solution.
> >
> > What I want on reply/forward is:
> >
> > 1) Start my reply above the quote, and
> > 2) Place my signature below the quote (eg: bottom of message)
> >
> > Other email programs like Thunderbird do this easily.
> >
> > I would appreciate any tips or pointers on how to accomplish this.
> >
> > Thank you all in advance...
>
> Or you could just bottom-quote, as this is the suggested Usenet method.
>
> --
> Notan
>

Jocelyn Fiorello [MVP - Outlook] wrote:
> You're right about bottom posting being the long-standing Usenet convention;
> however, top posting has gained popularity in many areas due to the fact that
> many people don't know how to edit earlier parts of the thread so that the
> thread doesn't get to be five miles long (or they don't have the time).
> Also, top posting is much easier to deal with when reading messages on a
> mobile device with a small screen and funky formatting -- just look at the
> top and the quote below it and you're done.

<snip>

With all due respect, the problem is when posters, such as yourself,
mix top and bottom posting, making the whole thing rather difficult
to follow.

--
Notan

Thank you for the replies,

Regardless of the debate on bottom-posting versus top-posting, I
personally want to control the behaviour of Outlook 2003 so that on a
reply or forward;

a) my signature is placed at the bottom of the entire message, and
b) the cursor is placed at the top of the message before any other
text.

It is unfortunate that Microsoft appears unable or unwilling to
provide this flexibility, a flexibility commonly found in many email
clients, and that we have to rely on the good graces of others to
write programs to accomplish what other email clients have natively.

With respect to using Outlook-QuoteFix to resolve this deficiency in
Outlook, I am concerned that one has to call it rather than Outlook,
which is not an advantage when trying to standardize and office
environment as simply as possible. Also Outlook-QuoteFix appears to
do more than address points a & b above.

I still believe Microsoft should provide the ability to do a and b
above as PART of Outlook. I wish Microsoft would take notice... but
I'm not holding my breath.







On Aug 10, 2:04 am, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
> Jocelyn Fiorello [MVP - Outlook] wrote:
>
> > You're right aboutbottomposting being the long-standing Usenet convention;
> > however, top posting has gained popularity in many areas due to the fact that
> > many people don't know how to edit earlier parts of the thread so that the
> > thread doesn't get to be five miles long (or they don't have the time).
> > Also, top posting is much easier to deal with when reading messages on a
> > mobile device with a small screen and funky formatting -- just look at the
> > top and the quote below it and you're done.
>
> <snip>
>
> With all due respect, the problem is when posters, such as yourself,
> mix top andbottomposting, making the whole thing rather difficult
> to follow.
>
> --
> Notan

If you want to post a suggestion to Microsoft, enter the Office community
newsgroups through
http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...s/default.mspx, click the arrow
next to the New button and choose Suggestion for Microsoft. A disclaimer
will appear at the end of your post to say that it is a suggestion. Other
users can vote on your suggestion and that will have a great effect on which
suggestions are the most likely to be implemented in the future.

--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook

*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please reply
only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***


"(E-Mail Removed)" wrote:

> Thank you for the replies,
>
> Regardless of the debate on bottom-posting versus top-posting, I
> personally want to control the behaviour of Outlook 2003 so that on a
> reply or forward;
>
> a) my signature is placed at the bottom of the entire message, and
> b) the cursor is placed at the top of the message before any other
> text.
>
> It is unfortunate that Microsoft appears unable or unwilling to
> provide this flexibility, a flexibility commonly found in many email
> clients, and that we have to rely on the good graces of others to
> write programs to accomplish what other email clients have natively.
>
> With respect to using Outlook-QuoteFix to resolve this deficiency in
> Outlook, I am concerned that one has to call it rather than Outlook,
> which is not an advantage when trying to standardize and office
> environment as simply as possible. Also Outlook-QuoteFix appears to
> do more than address points a & b above.
>
> I still believe Microsoft should provide the ability to do a and b
> above as PART of Outlook. I wish Microsoft would take notice... but
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2:04 am, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
> > Jocelyn Fiorello [MVP - Outlook] wrote:
> >
> > > You're right aboutbottomposting being the long-standing Usenet convention;
> > > however, top posting has gained popularity in many areas due to the fact that
> > > many people don't know how to edit earlier parts of the thread so that the
> > > thread doesn't get to be five miles long (or they don't have the time).
> > > Also, top posting is much easier to deal with when reading messages on a
> > > mobile device with a small screen and funky formatting -- just look at the
> > > top and the quote below it and you're done.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > With all due respect, the problem is when posters, such as yourself,
> > mix top andbottomposting, making the whole thing rather difficult
> > to follow.
> >
> > --
> > Notan
>
>
>