I
Ivan Bútora
Could someone explain to me (and I have asked this several times already) why
encoding options for plain text messages have been limited in Outlook 2002 and
2003? In Outlook 2000, one could choose plain text without encoding, with MIME
quoted printable, MIME base64, or un. In Outlook 2002 and 2003 (which are
supposed to be *new and improved* versions), these options disappear.
I have read that for Outlook 2002 one can modify a registry setting. See here
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;278134. However,
according to slipstick.com, setting the quoted printable encoding does NOT
encode soft line breaks. (I have tried this myself and it is true.)
My questions are as follows:
1. What are the reasons behind the decisions to remove encoding options from
Outlook? Why don't new versions of Outlook
give more control to the user, as opposed to less?
2. I am also surprised that Outlook 2003 didn't introduce other features such as
a custom reply message header in the quoted message.
3. The "remove line breaks" option in Outlook 2002 doesn't work correctly
because it removes also intentional line breaks put in by the user. Has this
been fixed in Outlook 2003?
(The problem probably is that in a non-encoded plain text message, all line
breaks are "equal", so to say, and thus Outlook cannot distinguish between ones
that were put in by the user intentionally (e.g. in the original message text),
and ones which were put in by mailing applications (e.g. in quoted texts). Is
this correct?)
If the above is correct, then the conclusion must be that the only sensible
option is to use soft line breaks with quoted printable encoding. As far as I
know, this encoding doesn't really add to the message size either. Yet, the
option was removed in newer versions of Outlook. How can this be explained?
(Another option would be plain text encoding without fixed line length, but such
an option is also not allowed in Outlook.)
I would *really* appreciate any insightful responses, since I have tried posted
about these things several times in the past without getting any answers, and I
have found anything on the web or at Microsoft's website which would talk about
these issues.
Thanks,
Ivan
encoding options for plain text messages have been limited in Outlook 2002 and
2003? In Outlook 2000, one could choose plain text without encoding, with MIME
quoted printable, MIME base64, or un. In Outlook 2002 and 2003 (which are
supposed to be *new and improved* versions), these options disappear.
I have read that for Outlook 2002 one can modify a registry setting. See here
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;278134. However,
according to slipstick.com, setting the quoted printable encoding does NOT
encode soft line breaks. (I have tried this myself and it is true.)
My questions are as follows:
1. What are the reasons behind the decisions to remove encoding options from
Outlook? Why don't new versions of Outlook
give more control to the user, as opposed to less?
2. I am also surprised that Outlook 2003 didn't introduce other features such as
a custom reply message header in the quoted message.
3. The "remove line breaks" option in Outlook 2002 doesn't work correctly
because it removes also intentional line breaks put in by the user. Has this
been fixed in Outlook 2003?
(The problem probably is that in a non-encoded plain text message, all line
breaks are "equal", so to say, and thus Outlook cannot distinguish between ones
that were put in by the user intentionally (e.g. in the original message text),
and ones which were put in by mailing applications (e.g. in quoted texts). Is
this correct?)
If the above is correct, then the conclusion must be that the only sensible
option is to use soft line breaks with quoted printable encoding. As far as I
know, this encoding doesn't really add to the message size either. Yet, the
option was removed in newer versions of Outlook. How can this be explained?
(Another option would be plain text encoding without fixed line length, but such
an option is also not allowed in Outlook.)
I would *really* appreciate any insightful responses, since I have tried posted
about these things several times in the past without getting any answers, and I
have found anything on the web or at Microsoft's website which would talk about
these issues.
Thanks,
Ivan