Here is one that always annoys me

[Guest]

Someone sends me an email using HTML (which is normally fine) but some of
them use tacky stationary's, double spacing, and just an all around ugly
format. When I reply, it seems to maintain that format..... how can I
maintain my HTML setting, yet use the Outlook defaults when I am replying to
these people? (triple spacing sucks!)

thanks

 

[Roady [MVP]]

Plain Text rules! ;-)

Instead of forcing each other your personal HTML preferences you can
configure your Plain Text format the way you want to as well. While you see
your own personal font settings while composing, the receiver will see the
email in their own Plain Text configuration. In most cases there is no need
to email in HTML format anyway.

 

[Guest]

i just want mine to ALWAYS stay at the deault Outlook setup, regardless of
what lame stationary they send me an email in, or what god awful line spacing
they've chosen..... can you tell me how to do that ?

 

[Brian Tillman]

i just want mine to ALWAYS stay at the deault Outlook setup,
regardless of what lame stationary they send me an email in, or what
god awful line spacing they've chosen..... can you tell me how to do
that ?

Outlook ALWAYS uses the format of the original message when replying or
forwarding. It might help if you click Tools>Options>Mail
Format>Fonts>Always use my fonts or Use my font when replying or forwarding
messages, but no guarantees.

 

[Roxana]

I agree with you in every aspect of your question and position... 100% !
Probably, you'll get continued philiosophical replies and opinions on HTML
vs. Plain Text, but no direct answer to that which you ask. If you do,
that's likely to be the very last thing one gets a direct reply to.... if at
all.

I'd like to hear the answer to ....can configure your **HTML format** the
way you want....
Not a "...you can configure your Plain Text format the way you want to as
well".

Sidestepped the question.... bah.

"Kelly Armitage" wrote in message

 

[Guest]

I LOVE YOU *wink* I know..... it drives me crazy to ask one question and get
directions on somethign I had no interest on in the first place...

Cheers Roxana! (although the previous post to youts MIGHT be a solution
which I am about to go try)

 

[Roxana]

It'd be nice to know it that will be a working solution, Kelly.

And yes... I'm going through one of those types elsewhere. No answers... or
if you post something which points that out, then an entire army of
"helpers" appear (including one MVP who takes it personal, misreads what is
written, makes demeaning remarks, and offers NO answer, of course. Though
they've bothered to post twice.).... all with no help at all, and worse
still, smart-alecky remarks. More comments and remarks in there than in my
initial post. lol

If one poses a question as regards an "answer", before applying said answer,
you wait for two days between each reply. If you remark about that,
then,....... well, you can see it here:

In the end, for me, it'd be less trouble to export my Pst's and re-install
Outlook 2002, than to deal with the 'methodology' <coff> employed in this
snoozegroup. An exercise in futility.

Cheers,
Roxana

in message

 

[Pat Willener]

This is a problem of HTML itself, not really of Outlook. Outlook will
preserve the original HTML document; that is by keeping the original
stationary in the HTML header. If it were to replace the header by your
stationary, then the original document would be altered.

You cannot have two (or more) stationaries in one HTML document - HTML
simply does not allow for that. When I receive such a message with a
ridiculous stationary or background color, I will simply format my own
message reply into a table with white background. (This needs an
external HTML editor such as Word or FrontPage.)

I don't know any other way around this short of changing the message
format to Plain Text.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

No, not a sidestepped question but a workaround. Read it differently;
"No, you cannot do this for HTML but you can do this when you use Plain
Text."

It might not be a direct answer, but people don't like to hear "No" either
even when it is the correct answer.

The "Plain Text Rules" remark was indeed a reference to all those debates
going on here and was meant for fun (noted the wink behind it?).

 

[Brian Tillman]

I'd like to hear the answer to ....can configure your **HTML format**
the way you want....

OK, then, here's the answer: you CANNOT control the format of the message
that someone sends you. If you want to change the format of a message that
you've received, change it to Plain Text to strip out the formatting, then
change it back to HTML and format it as you want it to appear.

 

[Roxana]

<top post>

OK... I'll read it differently, if I must. But the question would still
remain the same. Additionally, if I must read it differently, why must I
read minds ? Can't it just be answered in a way which addresses the precise
question, regardless of whether the word "No" must be employed ?

OK... "plain text rules", was a joke. OK, I'll accept that. (and yes, I did
see the *wink* )

But this "undoes" the entire thing:
<paste>
In most cases there is no need to email in HTML format anyway.
</paste>
Firstly, isn't that up to the user(s) in question and not necessarily you or
anyone else with whom the correspondence in question is not transpiring ?
Isn't it their right - and perhaps with purposeful reason - for the user(s)
to decide whether they want to, or need to use HTML ?

Secondly, and this is simply technical (or philosophical, if you wish) : Why
was HTML created ? Why does MS Outlook have their e-mail client configured
to use HTML at all ? Why not have a HTML police squad which disallows anyone
to use HTML, ('cos they dictate that "....In most cases there is no need to
email in HTML format anyway".)

I'm sorry Roady, but that is "sidestepping the issue" and imposing *your*
belief of what is and what isn't necessary or useful. A simple answer -
even if it contains the word "No" - pure and simple - is preferable to me,
than to have to hear about a proposed philosophy or imposed value.

And... lastly...., it is possible to replace what a given user might regard
as "gaudy" HTML, with their own (possibly equally garish to the other
recipient. ;-) *wink* ) HTML.

Respectfully,
Roxana

 

[Roxana]

<top post>

Yep... BTDT. ;-)
Thanks.

Roxana
in message