M
MWE
I just posted a thread about wanting to reply to an HTML
message using Rich Text. I was poking around and came
across a related thread that led me to SlipStick.Com and
an interesting item about converting HTML message to Rich
Text. That could be a solution until I read:
CAUTION: We recommend that you use this technique only if
you are running Outlook 2000 in Corporate/Workgroup mode.
If you use it in Internet Mail Only mode, your replies
will also be in Rich Text format, which most Internet mail
users (at least those not using Outlook) cannot read. They
will get a mysterious Winmail.dat attachment, and any
normal file attachments you send will be indecipherable.
This was a surprize. I thought that RTF was a very common
format and could be read by just about any word processor
or email tool. I have been using RTF for years and no one
has complained (maybe my messages were so garbled that the
recipient could not even figure out who sent it ???).
Whatever, how big a problme is this?
Thanks
message using Rich Text. I was poking around and came
across a related thread that led me to SlipStick.Com and
an interesting item about converting HTML message to Rich
Text. That could be a solution until I read:
CAUTION: We recommend that you use this technique only if
you are running Outlook 2000 in Corporate/Workgroup mode.
If you use it in Internet Mail Only mode, your replies
will also be in Rich Text format, which most Internet mail
users (at least those not using Outlook) cannot read. They
will get a mysterious Winmail.dat attachment, and any
normal file attachments you send will be indecipherable.
This was a surprize. I thought that RTF was a very common
format and could be read by just about any word processor
or email tool. I have been using RTF for years and no one
has complained (maybe my messages were so garbled that the
recipient could not even figure out who sent it ???).
Whatever, how big a problme is this?
Thanks