....and the recieptent has the right to reject it (many antispam/antivirus
programs will reject or convert HTML to plain text) or convert it to plain
text (and many do).
BTW - Outlook Express is not a trimmed down version of Outlook.
FWIW, it's very poor netiquette to post HTML to newsgroups - worse than
forcing plain text email replies to html.
--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Search for answers:
http://groups.google.com
Most recent posts to the Outlook newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=microsoft.public.outlook.*&num=30
As for the netiquette part, if a sender has the right to choose the format
he/she likes, I should have equal right to choose the format I prefer, don'
t you agree?
________________________________
Tariq Syed, MCSE
Thank you for your response Diane, however, I wouldn't consider it as
"Outlook's care for the honor of the sender or the netiquettes" as you
nicely put it. It' s just plain miss-out on Microsoft's part. Netiquettes
are not state laws. And for that matter, latest Outlook Express does include
this feature and always had it. It lets the end-user decide what he wants.
In all honesty, I cannot think of anyone who would want plain text only.
Back in the days of dial-up, yes it did matter because these HTML messages
took longer to download and it was netiquette back then because many paid by
hours/minutes for their Internet access. Now all dial-up users pay flat.
Also, back in those days, some 'old' email/news clients only supported
plain-text so it was also a compatibility issue - it is not anymore. Nobody
is running Eudora 1.0 on Windows 95 anymore.
So I gather, there's no way of disabling it then? That's just plain
disappointment from such a fabulous product like Outlook 2003! When the
world is sending video emails, I can't believe how Microsoft couldn't think
of adding this feature in Outlook 2003 when they already have this in
Outlook Express (which is just a trimmed down version of Outlook).
________________________________
Tariq Syed, MCSE
Outlook honors the senders format on replies - using the assumption that if
they sent it in plain text they want plain text in return and if they used
HTML, then an HTML reply is acceptable.
It's poor netiquette to reply to a plain text message using HTML unless you
know the sender can accept it and wants HTML - and then only if you need to
use HTML for readability - such as for bold or highlighted text.
--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Search for answers:
http://groups.google.com
Most recent posts to the Outlook newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=microsoft.public.outlook.*&num=30
Apologies if this has already been discussed here - I couldn't find any
answer.
When replying or forwarding an email that was sent in plain text format,
Outlook 2003 does not have any option to force HTML on it. It always
defaults to plain text. I have often unchecked the option on Outlook Express
called "Reply to messages using format in which they were sent" and that did
the trick. And as far as I can remember, this option was available on
Outlook XP also. But on the new Outlook 2003, I cannot find it anywhere. Is
it this a feature that Microsoft has removed? I like to think this is not
the case.
After searching MS KB as well as the good 'ol google.com, I thought I'd give
this newsgroup a try. Any MVP has an answer on this?
Thank you,
________________________________
Tariq Syed, MCSESystems EngineerDell Inc.
