• Missing plain text features in Outlook 2002
• Per-recipient message formats in Outlook 2002
• Default form substitution
• More non-Exchange sharing tools
• Team Folders Kit - missing again

Missing plain text features in Outlook 2002

We have updated our Outlook 2002 Missing Features page at http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2002/missing.htm to note the disappearance of some key plain text formatting features.

While Outlook has an option to set the line length for plain text messages (Tools | Options | Mail Format | Internet Format | Automatically Wrap Text), this setting appears to have no effect. Outlook always inserts a hard line break in plain text messages at about 72 characters.

Previous versions supported the option of using the quoted-printable format for plain text, which wraps all text with soft line breaks, not hard breaks. The Microsoft Knowledgebase article Q278134 describes how to modify the registry to set the default encoding format to quoted-printable in Outlook 2002. However, this setting appears to be only cosmetic. While it does indeed set the Content-Transfer-Encoding to quoted-printable, Outlook does not actually perform such encoding. Specifically, Outlook does not encode soft returns that would allow the text to wrap in recipients' mail programs.

The omission of both these options is ironic, since the web page URLs at Microsoft.com are getting longer and longer, especially at the MSDN and TechNet sites. Given that Outlook 2002 doesn't support quoted-printable or variable line lengths, if you want to sent plain text you're stuck with long URLs breaking across lines that must be repaired by the recipient before they're usuable.

Per-recipient message formats in Outlook 2002

Outlook 2002 makes it easier to specify what message format a particular Internet email address should receive. Earlier versions have had some limited recipient format settings, but they weren't consistent between versions and didn't always cover all possibilities. You can find Outlook 2002's per-recipient format setting on any email address -- either an address in an individual entry in Contacts or a one-time address on an outgoing message. Double-click the underlined address (if it's not underlined on a message, click the Check Names button). You should see three Internet Mail format options:

• Let Outlook decide the best sending format
• Send plain text only
• Send using Outlook Rich Text Format

These options interact with the two other message format settings in Outlook -- the format in which you compose the message and the RTF-to-Internet setting that governs how Outlook transmits messages composed in rich-text format (RTF), which only other Outlook users can handle. You'll find the RTF-to-Internet setting buried at Tools | Options | Mail Format | Internet Format. Again there are three choices:

• Convert to HTML format
• Convert to Plain Text format
• Send using Outlook Rich Text format

The default is Convert to HTML format.

Now that you know all the settings, we can talk about what happens when you send a message in various formats.

If you compose a message in plain text format, Outlook sends a plain text message to all recipients, regardless of the per-recipient format settings.

If you compose a message in HTML format, Outlook sends a plain text message to anyone marked "Send plain text only" and HTML to everyone else.

If you compose a message in RTF format, Outlook sends a plain text message to anyone marked for Send plain text only and an RTF message to anyone marked Send using Outlook Rich Text Format. But what about those recipients marked "Let Outlook decide the best sending format," which is the default setting for new contacts and one-off addresses?

That's where the RTF-to-Internet setting -- HTML, plain text or RTF -- comes into play. If you have chosen HTML or plain text, Outlook converts the RTF message to that format for those recipients marked Let Outlook decide. If you chose RTF, then Outlook retains the RTF formatting intact for those recipients, as well as any marked specifically for RTF.

You might wonder, with these different options interacting, what are the "best" settings? I set up Outlook on my desktop like this:

• Default message format = HTML
• RTF-to-Internet format = RTF
• Various recipients marked for plain text as needed

This works for me, because I generally don't compose RTF messages unless I know that all the recipients have Outlook. You may want to try other combinations.

There are many more nuances to the message format settings. You may want to conduct your own experiments to learn about how they interact with Exchange Server's RTF setting; what happens to Outlook forms, meeting requests, and task requests; and how Outlook handles embedded images and attachments in RTF messages (currently a bit buggy). I hope, though, that this exploration has given you at least an introduction to the more granular format settings that Outlook 2002 supports.

Default form substitution

One of the useful tricks that Microsoft introduced in Outlook 2000 is the ability to substitute any custom form for one of the default Outlook forms. For example, you might want to create a custom journal form that saves a copy of itself to a public folder, as well as the user's Journal folder.

You can invoke forms substitution through a set of registry entries. Microsoft provides a FormsAdmin.exe tool, which you can download from http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2000/journ/OutToolsIntro.htm. In Outlook 2002, this tool puts the registry change in the wrong key. However, you can export the .reg file using the tool and adapt it to work for Outlook 2002 simply by changing the key from HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Office\9.0\Outlook\Custom Forms to HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Office\10.0\Outlook\Custom Forms. Once you make that change, run the .reg file to update the registry with your forms substitution.

A developer relatively new to Outlook discovered a nuance related to forms substitution that hadn't occurred to me before. (Sometimes it pays to get new blood in this business.) Forms substitution makes not one but two changes in the way Outlook behaves. Existing items act one way, while new items act differently. The difference is in the MessageClass property, which controls what form Outlook uses to display the item.

With forms substitution in place, existing items with their MessageClass set to the default form will open in the custom form whose message class you specified in the tool, but the MessageClass property on the items will remain that of the default form. For example, if you have a custom journal form named IPM.Activity.CopyPublic that you've substituted for IPM.Activity, existing items will still show IPM.Activity as their MessageClass, but will open using the IPM.Activity.CopyPublic form.

However, any new items that you create will carry the MessageClass of the substitute form. Clicking the New button in the Journal folder in our example will create a new item using the IPM.Activity.CopyPublic form. If you later remove the substitution registry entry, the MessageClass for those items does not revert to the default IPM.Activity form. If you want the items to switch back to the built-in default form, you will need to use one of the Convert Existing Items methods discussed at http://www.slipstick.com/dev/newdefaultform.htm#convert.

This effect on the MessageClass is important, since if you later remove the form or if you remove an ActiveX control that appeared on the custom form, the user will probably get an error message.

More non-Exchange sharing tools

The last issue of EMO (http://www.slipstick.com/emo/2001/up011024.htm) reported on some new tools for sharing Outlook data without Exchange Server -- a very hot topic since Outlook 2002 does not support the Net Folders method of sharing via email. We have three more for your consideration this time.

OLWorkgroupFolders (http://www.olfolders.com/) is designed to allow up to 20 users access to a Personal Folders .pst file via TCP/IP connections. It includes SMTP and POP mail proxy components, so you have everything you need to build a workgroup sharing system. (The product web site says some of the mail functionality doesn't work with Outlook 2002.)

Version 3.x of Dencom Global Address Book (http://www.dencom.co.nz/gab/gab.htm), a shared address book, now supports Outlook 2002 and allows users to update address book entries directly from within Outlook.

If you're main interest in sharing data is to gain some kind of customer relationship management (CRM) or sales force automation capability, you might want to look at OutSmart (http://www.smartsales.com/). Users work with OutSmart data in Outlook, connecting to OutSmart's own server. OutSmart is the most expensive option we've looked at -- potentially more costly than Exchange Server -- but the built-in CRM features add a lot of value.

Team Folders Kit - missing again