«

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:38:18 +1300, Richard wrote:

> I am getting sick of deleting the uglyfied sig, setting it to html, and
> then re-adding the sig.
>
> Is there some way to force outlook (2007) to always reply in HTML?
>
> Not wanting to hear from a whole lot of weenies about how they dislike
> HTML emails either. They work fine in the realworld.

The better thing to do would be to set a version of your email signature
for all three format types - plain text, rich text, and HTML. This is
something that MS Outlook can do.

That way you're not imposing your format type on all persons who send you
an email - especially given that HTML is intended for web pages rather
than for text based email communications.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On 19/02/2011 7:50 p.m., Boots wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:38:18 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>> I am getting sick of deleting the uglyfied sig, setting it to html, and
>> then re-adding the sig.
>>
>> Is there some way to force outlook (2007) to always reply in HTML?
>>
>> Not wanting to hear from a whole lot of weenies about how they dislike
>> HTML emails either. They work fine in the realworld.
>
> The better thing to do would be to set a version of your email signature
> for all three format types - plain text, rich text, and HTML. This is
> something that MS Outlook can do.
>
> That way you're not imposing your format type on all persons who send you
> an email - especially given that HTML is intended for web pages rather
> than for text based email communications.

Cant do images in a plain text one, and as 90% of emails are replied to
with just the sig with instructions in it, that makes it pretty
hopeless. HTML in email has long being the norm, other than when people
use craphouse webmails that cannot author it, and in those cases I have
the issues with the reply. Not once had someone complain about getting
instructions in an HTML email, Not going to change my practices because
a few people are still stuck in the 1980's era with fixed width fonts
and no formatting and only 70something characters per line for their emails.

In message <ijnt68$10j$>, Richard wrote:

> Not once had someone complain about getting instructions in an HTML email,
> Not going to change my practices because a few people are still stuck in
> the 1980's era with fixed width fonts and no formatting and only
> 70something characters per line for their emails.

Have you noticed that spam filters increase your score if your message is in
HTML format?

On 19/02/2011 10:13 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<ijnt68$10j$>, Richard wrote:
>
>> Not once had someone complain about getting instructions in an HTML email,
>> Not going to change my practices because a few people are still stuck in
>> the 1980's era with fixed width fonts and no formatting and only
>> 70something characters per line for their emails.
>
> Have you noticed that spam filters increase your score if your message is in
> HTML format?

No

The only one I have issues with is the xtra yahoo one, all others are
not a problem

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:58:00 +1300, Richard wrote:

> Cant do images in a plain text one, and as 90% of emails are replied to
> with just the sig with instructions in it, that makes it pretty
> hopeless.

You don't need images in _signatures_.

Also, if you need to send images in an email then you would be choosing
to reply in either rich text or HTML in any case and so the lack of an
image in your signature for plain text emails is not relevant.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:58:00 +1300, Richard wrote:

> HTML in email has long being the norm

Sorry - wrong. Maybe it's the norm for emails that you send, but it's not
the norm for all.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:58:00 +1300, Richard wrote:

> Not going to change my practices because a few people are still stuck in
> the 1980's era with fixed width fonts and no formatting and only
> 70something characters per line for their emails.

The better thing to do would be to set a version of your email signature
for all three format types - plain text, rich text, and HTML. This is
something that MS Outlook can do.

If you are using MS Outlook and someone sends you a plain text email MS
Outlook can automatically use a version of your signature - created by
you - that is composed as plain text.

If you are using MS Outlook and someone sends you a rich text email MS
Outlook can automatically use a version of your signature - created by
you - that is composed as rich text.

If you are using MS Outlook and someone sends you an HTML text email MS
Outlook can automatically use a version of your signature - created by
you - that is composed as HTML text.

What about this do you not understand?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:43:10 +1300, EMB wrote:

> Outlook will *always* reply in the format of the original message, and
> AFAIK it isn't possible to change that behaviour (it ****es me off at
> work and so far I haven't found a solution).

You can specify what type of formatting to use on a per recipient basis.
You can also easily change what format you're using.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Feb 19, 10:13*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

> Have you noticed that spam filters increase your score if your message is in
> HTML format?

Only if the spam filters are poorly configured.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:36:19 -0800, Simon wrote:

>> Have you noticed that spam filters increase your score if your message
>> is in HTML format?
>
> Only if the spam filters are poorly configured.

But you DO know that HTML is accepted industry-wide as at least an
indicative factor in determining whether or not something is SPAM, don't
you?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"