\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 30, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495 "2009-11-30T17:45:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 12\
**Page:** 2
**Author:**  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/21 "2009-12-01T20:42:04Z")
> [@Valgard](#):
>
> Ditto. I hate hate hate HTML-formatted email because the vast majority of it that I receive is spam. Even if it’s not something bad just opening it signals the sender that your address is “live” and being checked so you get more crap. I got sick of it and set Outlook to just open everything in plain text format.
I, too, have Outlook set to display all incoming email as plain text (and defaults to plain text when sending), but I think your concern about signalling the sender that your address is valid, is misplaced.
My Outlook (I don’t recall whether it’s a setting I selected, but I think it’s default), does not load pictures from external sites in emails, even when I display them as HTML. As long as your client isn’t loading a picture, then the sender won’t be able to track whether the email has been opened.
I, like Lobsang, am pretty stubborn as well, just the other way. I’d like to force everyone to use plain text by making their .sigs look crappy as hell.
---
**Author:**  [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/22 "2009-12-01T20:52:23Z")
I will admit that I also dislike the \>\>\>\> thing. Mine’s set not to do that. Unfortunately, the only way I know to fix it is manually, which is a real pain.
I do use RTF sometimes to format emails. I’m OK with RTF usually. The worst you can get there is obnoxious fonts in annoying colors.
It’s the HTML that I truly hate. For some reason, it seems to cause people to use picture signatures, ugly wallpaper backgrounds, clipart, etc.
---
**Author:**  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/23 "2009-12-01T21:28:40Z")
Repeat after me: “Just because you _can_, doesn’t mean you **have to**.”
Because html allows people to use backgrounds and flashy gifs and embedded sound files, some people think that makes their email better. Ugh, no.
I don’t mind formatted text (colored fonts, underline and bolding and italics, etc), but I get annoyed by the distracting, oversized, annoying junk thrown in to html.
Unless the pictures are the point of the email, leave them out. I don’t need a dozen copies of your Harley or pet lizard or ugly baby appended to your sig file every email I get from you. I don’t need a sig file, for that matter. I don’t need your name in curly font with gif symbols flashing around it or whatever.
I sign my emails manually with a little info as required. For frequent friends, I just use - initial. Slightly less informally, I’ll use - First Name. Something semi official gets - First Last. Only if I think it important in the context do I drop in phone numbers, titles, etc. This applies at work or home. (Work I’m slightly more prone to at least First name, even for casual replies to coworkers.)
---
**Author:**  [@Cugel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cugel)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/24 "2009-12-02T04:08:04Z")
HTML/decorative mail says “noob” to me. I always send back plain text, properly edited for relevancy.
---
**Author:**  [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/25 "2009-12-02T12:21:59Z")
> [@redtail23](#):
>
> It’s the HTML that I truly hate. For some reason, it seems to cause people to use picture signatures, ugly wallpaper backgrounds, clipart, etc.
No, it’s not the HTML that you truly hate - it is the wallpaper backgrounds, clip-art etc. HTML doesn’t kill aeshtetics; people with HTML kill aesthetics.
Pretty much everyone I work with uses HTML and we have virtually no wallpapers or clip-art. Maybe it is because we are an IT shop so everyone sneers at fancy emails; or maybe it is because we are dominantly male. The few fancied-up emails we do get are invariably from women.
I dislike plain text not only because of how it looks (ugly, archaic, less easy to read), but because it is harder to review or respond to. HTML (or RTF) allows the automatic insertion of tagged, colored text when replying. This is particularly useful when multiple people review an email or there are multiple exchanges. By typing “In red” at the top, it is then very easy to find the latest comments.
I also frequently imbed bits of spreadsheets or documents, which you cannot do very well in plain text.
Those of you who prefer plain text - why don’t you post in Courier?
---
**Author:**  [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/26 "2009-12-02T12:45:38Z")
My Outlook 2003 has the option to add a plain text sig. That would solve the #1 complaint - though if you’re replying to a 20+ email chain, it’s surely more sensible not to include your sig every time.
---
**Author:**  [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/27 "2009-12-02T13:42:29Z")
Interesting.
I never use formatted emails-for security and efficiency reasons.
It never occurred to me that some people might like formatting. I always assumed formatted emails were sent by advertisers and people who didn’t know how to turn it off.
Now I realize that some people like them.
good to know.
I still will turn off formatting. Much nicer in my opinion, but each to his/her own.
---
**Author:**  [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/28 "2009-12-02T13:46:25Z")
> [@amarone](#):
>
> No, it’s not the HTML that you truly hate - it is the wallpaper backgrounds, clip-art etc. HTML doesn’t kill aeshtetics; people with HTML kill aesthetics.
>
> Pretty much everyone I work with uses HTML and we have virtually no wallpapers or clip-art. Maybe it is because we are an IT shop so everyone sneers at fancy emails; or maybe it is because we are dominantly male. The few fancied-up emails we do get are invariably from women.
>
> I dislike plain text not only because of how it looks (ugly, archaic, less easy to read), but because it is harder to review or respond to. HTML (or RTF) allows the automatic insertion of tagged, colored text when replying. This is particularly useful when multiple people review an email or there are multiple exchanges. By typing “In red” at the top, it is then very easy to find the latest comments.
>
> I also frequently imbed bits of spreadsheets or documents, which you cannot do very well in plain text.
>
> Those of you who prefer plain text - why don’t you post in Courier?
Uh, isn’t that the point? I am not (by preference) posting in Courier or any other font. I am posting in plain text. How you display plain text on your machine is up to you. Personally I use Courier as little as possible-it tends to be an ugly font to my eye, but some people apparently like it. Each to his/her own.
---
**Author:**  [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/29 "2009-12-02T14:37:01Z")
> [@rbroome](#):
>
> Uh, isn’t that the point? I am not (by preference) posting in Courier or any other font. I am posting in plain text. How you display plain text on your machine is up to you. Personally I use Courier as little as possible-it tends to be an ugly font to my eye, but some people apparently like it. Each to his/her own.
Well, that fights some ignorance of mine. I didn’t know that you could choose a font for plain text (because the font controls are grayed out when you prepare a plain text message). I have now found the Outlook configuration option.
---
**Author:**  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/30 "2009-12-02T15:30:19Z")
> [@amarone](#):
>
> Those of you who prefer plain text - why don’t you post in Courier?
'Cause I’m not so presumptuous to force someone to use a specific font to read his email. I send the text and let him decide what font he wants to read it in.
> [@rbroome](#):
>
> …but each to his/her own.
> [@rbroome](#):
>
> Each to his/her own.
Now here I am feeling curmudgeonly enough because I prefer what some people think of as 25 year out-of-date formatting for email, and you post this fingernails-on-a-blackboard phrasing. I think I’m going to take a break and tell those kids to get off my lawn.
---
**Author:**  [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/31 "2009-12-02T19:28:03Z")
> [@amarone](#):
>
> Those of you who prefer plain text - why don’t you post in Courier?
I know someone else pointed out that you can view plain text emails in whatever font you wish, but this is a key point I need to make.
Sending formatted emails is all about _taking control away from the recipient_. I have a very high-resolution computer screen. Coupled with 50-year-old eyes, tiny fonts can be hard to read. When I receive a plain-text email, I see it in my preferred font face and text size (14 point Bookman Old Style), and it’s comfortable and easy for me to read without shoving my nose against the screen.
When people insist on sending formatted emails, I see their preferred fonts instead of mine. Text tends to show up smaller on Macs than it does with Windows, so when some 22-year-old with 20/20 vision sends me an email all prettily formatted with blue 8-point italic text on a pale blue background, it really pisses me off. It’s rude, and it’s interfering with communication, which is after all the primary purpose of email.
---
**Author:**  [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495/32 "2009-12-02T20:22:11Z")
> [@Lobsang](#):
>
> I don’t _specifically_ mean HTML. I basically mean Formatted.
Don’t get the impression that certain folks are not hip to using formatted email (HTML or RTF). The problem is that HTML has security and privacy issues.
For example, at many companies, the employees will exchange formatted email with each other behind the firewall but all incoming & outgoing email is converted to plain text.
Your macro isn’t going to solve that in every case because the companys’ email gateways will scrub out the HTML.
> [@](#):
>
> But correct me if that’s wrong. Would it be all-round better to use RTF (“Rich Text”)?
RTF is a Microsoft format. There are several email clients that don’t support it.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-possible-to-force-richtext-html-when-replying-to-plain-text-emails/519495.md?page=1)