Outlook 2003 SP2 was released earlier this week and along with the usual bug fixes, has an anti-phishing feature added to junk mail filtering. I really like this feature and I expect that most Outlook 2003 users will like it as well. In addition to anti-phishing, all email in the junk mail folder is converted to plain text format, with the urls clearly visible.

How it works: when email has potential phishing characteristics, including when the url displayed in an HTML email doesn't match the underlying url, i.e., the html code looks like:
<a href="some_site.com/some_page.html">my_site.com/my_page.htm<a>, the links are disabled. If the message has other characters identifying it as possible spam, it will be moved to the junk email folder and the links are disabled. If the message is not identified as spam it remains the Inbox with the links disabled. If you feel the link is safe, you can click on the Infobar and enable the hyperlinks. Note that to use the new anti-phishing feature, you need the latest Junk E-mail Filter Update installed along with SP2. Windows Update or Office Update will detect and apply the latest Junk-email filter if you don't have it installed yet.

Service pack 2 also includes previously released updates and hotfixes for Office 2003, including Service Pack 1 and various security updates. Exchange server users will benefit from changes made in how Calendar meetings are processed and from support for the Exchange Server 2003 SP2 Offline Address Book. It also includes a much awaited fix for users with two SMTP accounts, where messages sometimes were sent from the wrong account. Messages should now be sent from the correct account every time.

Outlook Live subscribers who installed the version of Outlook supplied by MSN/Outlook Live will need to install the Outlook Live version of SP2. If you use Office Update, it will detect your version of Outlook and install the correct version of SP2 for you.

While corporate users should wait for their administrator to push the update out to them, I highly recommend that all other Outlook users install this update over the next few days, preferably using Windows Update or Office update to insure you have the needed patches. If you have the Microsoft update service enabled, SP2 will be pushed down to you in the next several days.

Outlook 2003 SP2 (on Slipstick)

Issues that are fixed in Outlook 2003 by Office 2003 Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/906451/

Description of Office 2003 Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/887616

Description of Outlook Live 2003 Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/902848

Support WebCast: Overview of Outlook 2003 Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=908366
Thursday, October 06, 2005: 10:00 AM Pacific time (UTC -7 hours)

Last week, Chris Prillo from Lockergnome wrote that Outlook 2000 was a better email client than Outlook 2003. While there are some nice features it supports that later versions do not, overall, Outlook 2003 is a better email client. Many of the features lost were available only to some users - usually only those using Internet only mode (IMO). One painful loss was the ability to export accounts, in much the same way account information can be exported from Outlook Express. Although I hesitate to say the address book in IMO was better, in part because the address book in Corporate mode and Outlook 2002/2003 has some very useful features, many people who upgrade from IMO mode complain about the "new" address book, which is the same address book Outlook 2000 Corp users are familiar with. There are a few other features that were lost in the conversion to one Outlook client, but it's a much better experience for all users.

Chris never mentions if he is using Outlook 2000 in Internet mode (IMO) or Corporate/Workgroup mode. If you run the same tests against Outlook 2000 IMO and Outlook 2000 Corporate, you'll discover Outlook 2000 IMO is faster in all areas and some features are missing from each mode. The mode is important, as there are features and differences between the modes. Outlook 2003 uses an improved version of the MAPI API used in Outlook 2000 Corporate. Outlook 2000 IMO was an experiment in removing MAPI from Outlook, to provide a faster email client and a PIM to Internet mail-only users. Each mode had some features the other did not - such as Internet mode did not support Exchange mailboxes and Corporate did not support IMAP accounts. Since many third party add-ins needed MAPI and only worked in Corporate version, having two modes proved to be confusing to many users and the decision was made to ship just one Outlook that worked with all mail transports and add-ins. A comparison between Outlook 2000 Corp and Outlook 2003 gives you a better feel for the improvements all Outlook users enjoy.

According to Chris, Outlook 2000 on a slower machine is much faster than Outlook 2003 on a newer machine. He also states that Microsoft "made UI design choices that were just plain wrong" and Outlook had "virtually no QA". Chris goes on to say that the following blanket statements can't be proven incorrect:

Chris: In Outlook 2003, I can watch a new message window redraw itself on my screen. WTF?! It snaps up in Outlook 2000. And if you're telling me that you can't notice the difference, you've automatically disqualified yourself as someone who understands what's going on.

Diane: Chris doesn't mention what OS he is using on either machine or which email editor he's using. Without seeing it in action, it's hard to say what is causing it - it could video driver issues, Windows display settings, or something else. It's certainly not something experienced by most Outlook 2003 users, myself included.

Chris: In Outlook XP and 2003, Microsoft made a BONEHEADED decision to merge the client's POP3 and Exchange functionality. This was a mistake - a tremendous mistake - and people who don't use Exchange have suffered because of it. The Outlook team knows it - they KNOW it. THEY KNOW IT!!!

Diane: Outlook supported both POP3 and Exchange since Outlook 97. Why is this suddenly a problem for POP3 users? Many Outlook and Exchange experts, including members of the development team that work on the transports don't know what they supposedly know. One has this to say: "Does anybody know how non-Exchange users are suffering for this? I know that Outlook XP's POP3 perf was bad, but I actually vastly prefer Outlook 2003 POP to that of 2000. And for the large percentage of our users that use both Exchange and POP, XP and 2003 are much better - at least you can rely on messages going out the right account now (well, unless you have 2003 SP1)." [SP2 fixes the bug in SP1 so that all mail is sent on the correct account once again.]

The IMAP transport is problematic, especially with some IMAP servers, and Microsoft is well aware of the suffering IMAP users go through with any version of Outlook. The good news is that they are working hard on improving the IMAP transport in Outlook 12.

When the two modes merged into one, some Internet only features were lost, including the ability to split a single large message into multiple smaller messages and combine them on the receiving side. This affects only a small number of users and in all honesty, there are much better ways to share oversized attachments than using Combine and Decode, and utilities exist to break apart attachments before sending.

The feature losses were well worth it in the long run - we all get a better product because Microsoft only has to spend time developing and testing one client. When there is a problem and you need support, it's not as confusing, because everyone has the same features and functionality.

Chris: In Outlook 2003, the margins of a new message window are padded unevenly (even in plain text mode). WTF?! If the UI is sloppy, just think about what's sitting underneath it.

Diane: If this is the best thing someone finds to complain about then Microsoft did a pretty good job with Outlook. I haven't noticed uneven padding but at 1400x1050 resolution, the difference would have to be large before I could notice it.

Chris: In Outlook 2003, the new Folder list is confusing. I don't know what folder I'm in, mode I'm in, etc. That, and the padding / dividing lines are uneven and imbalanced.

Diane: Mode? What mode? Outlook 2002 put an end to the very confusing Internet and Corporate modes. They were a mistake that never show have happened. I'm not sure which padding and lines are uneven and unbalanced.

However, his complaint about the folder list is legitimate. Many new users do have a hard time getting used to the new Navigation pane and two of the most common navigation pane questions are how to get rid of the Favorite folders section and where to find their Exchange Public folders. If you find the navigation pane confusing and keep losing your Tasks, Contacts, or Public folders, switch to the folder list (Ctrl+6) or keep the Navigation buttons pulled up, showing the large buttons, until you get used to the filtered views of folders.

Wanting to remove the Favorite folder list is more common with people those who only have a few folders, as it truly is a waste of space when every folder is duplicated in the Favorite folders and in the Mail list. Unfortunately, it's not possible, except by switching to the folder list view. Once users get used to the navigation pane, more complain that the Navigation pane keeps losing their customizations. Now that is a legitimate complaint! (One we don't have a good solution for.)

Chris: Outlook XP and 2003, as clients, are slower. They're just slower, period. Sure, you might be able to access Exchange quicker - but at what cost? And what about those of us who don't give a damn about Exchange? Outlook Express isn't a PIM, and the new Windows Mail client isn't likely to be a viable replacement, either.

Diane: To be honest, all versions of Outlook qualify as "slugs", but most people feel Outlook 2003 is faster overall than Outlook 2000 in Internet mode (and much faster than Corporate mode). Sending and receiving email has always been much slower than Outlook Express and Microsoft is working hard to improve Outlook 12 in this area. POP3 access is slightly faster in Outlook 2003 but Outlook will always be slower than Outlook Express, because Outlook uses MAPI to convert the message when it commits it to the data store and OE uses the raw message it downloads.

Chris: Outlook 2000 was the last version to support Net Folders. I told you a thousand times: I don't want an Exchange server because I simply don't need it. Yet another hassle in my friggin' life, yet another service to depend on, yet another monthly bill. NO.

Diane: Netfolders were a horrible mistake. Sue Mosher says it best: "Net Folders was unreliable at best, and dangerous at worst." Others were less kind: "If he misses NetFolders anything else he says is automatically disqualified from consideration." Netfolders are buggy and can cause the loss of all data in shared folders. Sure, they work fine for some people, but as soon as they decide to act up, getting them working correctly again, without loss of data, takes some effort. If you require sharing and value your data, invest in one of the many workgroup applications available. It's money well spent.

Chris: Outlook is still NOT a multithreaded application! In Outlook 2000, this is excusable. In Outlook 2003, this is unforgivable.

An Outlook developer: I guess he never looked at the processes... if he did, he's see Outlook is mutlithreaded.

Diane: I believe he means when Outlook is collecting mail, as Outlook has a habit of hanging during send and receives. It's still far from perfect in this area and there is room for improvement, but Outlook 2003 hangs less during sends and receives than Outlook 2000, especially in Corporate mode.

Chris: Outlook 2003 suffers from the "I'm gonna freeze right now for a few seconds - but I'm not going to tell you why" problem. I've seen it happen on more than one machine, folks. This isn't my imagination.

Diane: Comparing of Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2000 with the same accounts and no add-ins installed with either version, it happens to me more often in Outlook 2000. Toss some types of add-ins into the mix, and it can become very annoying in either program. Outlook 2003 began freezing or was very slow for no apparent reason, until I noticed NewsGator was collecting RSS feeds. It just takes too long too process 139 busy feeds and commit the messages to Outlook's folders and that slows the system down. Another add-in I use throws up a dialog that causes Outlook to appear to hang while it waits for confirmation, but this is not Outlook's fault and I refuse to give up my favorite add-ins or reduce the number of RRS feeds I collect. I've also noticed it when I'm collecting mail from some POP3 and IMAP accounts and the MSN Outlook connector, but it's not something unique to Outlook 2003, it's a problem that has plagued all versions of Outlook and is an area that Microsoft and add-in developers need to work on.

The Outlook On Outlook - Chris Pirillo
http://channels.lockergnome.com/windows/archives/20050921_the_outlook_on_outlook.phtml

Sharing Microsoft Outlook Calendar and Contacts
http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/share.htm

Outlook Net Folders
http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/netfolders.htm

Choosing an Outlook 98 or Outlook 2000 Mode
http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/choosingmode.htm

Disable Group Views
http://www.outlook-tips.net/howto/grouping.htm

Time and time again over the past few weeks, people have asked me where to find the option to force all email to HTML "just like Outlook Express does". Outlook doesn't have such and option and frankly, it's a bad idea to force all replies to HTML even if your email client supports it.

When someone chooses to use plain text when they send a message, its for a good reason - they may have limited mailbox or storage space, they may not use an HTML capable email client, or they may pay by the byte or by the minute for access to their email. Thanks to the popularity of wireless access from PDAs and cell phones, many users use a plain text email client and pay by usage. Changing the message format for your reply to HTML is rude, inconsiderate and poor netiquette.

There are times that switching to HTML makes sense, such as to highlight previous conversations in different colors or fonts so it's easier to follow the discussion and if you know the person can accept HTML this is acceptable - but don't abuse it. Do this only when it's absolutely necessary.

The main reason users give for changing the format is that it's easier for them to read onscreen an HTML message. Instead of converting to HTML to make the messages easier to read, change the font used for plain text messages. To do this, go to Tools, Options, Mail Format, Fonts. Change the font used for composing and reading plain text messages to use the same font as used by the other font options.