Re: Forcing Outlook reply format to html

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Boots, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. Boots

    Boots Guest

    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"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Boots

    Richard Guest

    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.
     
    Richard, Feb 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 19, 2011
    #3
  4. Boots

    Richard Guest

    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
     
    Richard, Feb 19, 2011
    #4
  5. Boots

    Boots Guest

    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"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #5
  6. Boots

    Boots Guest

    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"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #6
  7. Boots

    Boots Guest

    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"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #7
  8. Boots

    Boots Guest

    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 pisses 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"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #8
  9. Boots

    Simon Guest

    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.
     
    Simon, Feb 19, 2011
    #9
  10. Boots

    Boots Guest

    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"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #10
  11. Boots

    Donchano Guest

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:15 +0000 (UTC), Boots
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >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.


    Firstly, "norm for all" is an oxymoron.

    Secondly, all but one or two of the thirty or so emails I receive
    daily are HTML. And those are usually from cellphones (eg: iPhones) or
    from techs.

    Finally, all but one or two of the people, organisations or companies
    to which I send emails accept HTML. I also have Thunderbird set to
    send all my emails in HTML by default, unless the person receiving it
    only accepts text emails, in which case Thunderbird automatically
    sends it in a text format.
     
    Donchano, Feb 19, 2011
    #11
  12. Boots

    Boots Guest

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 09:33:03 +1300, Donchano wrote:

    > I also have Thunderbird set to send all my emails in HTML by default,
    > unless the person receiving it only accepts text emails, in which case
    > Thunderbird automatically sends it in a text format.


    My commiserations for your disability.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #12
  13. Boots

    Donchano Guest

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:33:06 +0000 (UTC), Boots
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 09:33:03 +1300, Donchano wrote:
    >
    >> I also have Thunderbird set to send all my emails in HTML by default,
    >> unless the person receiving it only accepts text emails, in which case
    >> Thunderbird automatically sends it in a text format.

    >
    >My commiserations for your disability.


    I'm not the one with the boot in my mouth.
     
    Donchano, Feb 19, 2011
    #13
  14. Boots

    Simon Guest

    On Feb 20, 9:31 am, Boots <> wrote:

    > 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?


    It's about as useful as assuming that email sent from a gmail is SPAM,
    and that's why we remove that weighting as soon as the anti-SPAM
    technology comes online. A quick glance at our email statistics show
    that over 78% of our inbound traffic is formatted as HTML, with RTF
    making up the bulk of the remainder, and plain-text account for about
    a percent. Times have changed.
     
    Simon, Feb 19, 2011
    #14
  15. Boots

    Boots Guest

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:54:23 +1300, Donchano wrote:

    >>My commiserations for your disability.

    >
    > I'm not the one with the boot in my mouth.


    You're the one wasting bandwidth by using HTML ti make character based
    communications pretty.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, Feb 19, 2011
    #15
  16. Boots

    Enkidu Guest

    On 20/02/11 11:13, Simon wrote:
    > On Feb 20, 9:31 am, Boots<> wrote:
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > It's about as useful as assuming that email sent from a gmail is SPAM,
    >

    It probably is. I have only two email addresses on GMail that I let
    through and that is because the sender does not have an account
    elsewhere. I've not noticed any problems. AOL is another good one to
    ban, and there are a couple of others that I forget.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Feb 19, 2011
    #16
  17. Boots

    Donchano Guest

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:39:54 +0000 (UTC), Boots
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:54:23 +1300, Donchano wrote:
    >
    >>>My commiserations for your disability.

    >>
    >> I'm not the one with the boot in my mouth.

    >
    >You're the one wasting bandwidth by using HTML ti make character based
    >communications pretty.


    Wasting bandwidth? We're talking about email in the 21st Century, not
    BBS or Usenet ... EMAIL!. And yes, I like to be able to format my
    email communications to my standards, not to those of some computer
    dinosaur wallowing in the past.

    Join the fucking 21st century you pathetic one-note loon.
     
    Donchano, Feb 19, 2011
    #17
  18. Boots

    Donchano Guest

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:12:22 +1300, EMB <> shouted
    from the highest rooftop:

    >On 20/02/2011 12:01 p.m., Donchano wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:39:54 +0000 (UTC), Boots
    >> <> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:54:23 +1300, Donchano wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> My commiserations for your disability.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not the one with the boot in my mouth.
    >>>
    >>> You're the one wasting bandwidth by using HTML ti make character based
    >>> communications pretty.

    >>
    >> Wasting bandwidth? We're talking about email in the 21st Century, not
    >> BBS or Usenet ... EMAIL!. And yes, I like to be able to format my
    >> email communications to my standards, not to those of some computer
    >> dinosaur wallowing in the past.
    >>
    >> Join the fucking 21st century you pathetic one-note loon.
    >>

    >Why don't you tell him what you really think of him Duncan? :)


    I'm working on it ... ;-)
     
    Donchano, Feb 19, 2011
    #18
  19. Boots

    Boots Guest

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:01:55 +1300, Donchano wrote:

    >>You're the one wasting bandwidth by using HTML ti make character based
    >>communications pretty.

    >
    > Wasting bandwidth? We're talking about email in the 21st Century, not
    > BBS or Usenet ... EMAIL!


    Correct - and you still waste bandwidth - significantly more bandwidth -
    by using HTML in email messages.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, Feb 20, 2011
    #19
  20. Boots

    Boots Guest

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:13:50 -0800, Simon wrote:

    > It's about as useful as assuming that email sent from a gmail is SPAM,
    > and that's why we remove that weighting as soon as the anti-SPAM
    > technology comes online. A quick glance at our email statistics show
    > that over 78% of our inbound traffic is formatted as HTML, with RTF
    > making up the bulk of the remainder, and plain-text account for about a
    > percent. Times have changed.


    Indeed they have. Wastage is still wastage irrespective of how many
    people do it.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, Feb 20, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. slacK_

    Reply format.

    slacK_, Aug 13, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    539
    Andreas
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. Denny B

    Reply....Reply All not in Browser

    Denny B, Apr 24, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    597
    Whiskers
    Apr 24, 2006
  3. Monima
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,843
    Monima
    Dec 14, 2010
  4. Dave Doe

    Re: Forcing Outlook reply format to html

    Dave Doe, Feb 19, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    690
    Dave Doe
    Feb 19, 2011
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Re: Forcing Outlook reply format to html

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 19, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    422
    Robert J. Roosevelt
    Feb 19, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page