Microsoft takes email design back 5 years

By David Greiner

January 12, 2007

516 Comments

As I type this post I still can't believe it. I'm literally stunned. If you haven't already heard, I'm talking about the recent news that Outlook 2007, released next month, will stop using Internet Explorer to render HTML emails and instead use the crippled Microsoft Word rendering engine.

Now c'mon, how bad can this be?

First things first, you need to realize that Outlook enjoys a 75-80% share of the corporate email market, which is similar to Internet Explorer's share of the browser market - they make the rules. We've been doing some early testing, as have a few other brave souls, and come February, here's just a taste of what won't be supported:

  1. No background images - Background images in divs and table cells are gone, meaning Mark's image replacement technique is out the window.
  2. Poor background color support - Give a div or table cell a background color, add some text to it and the background color displays fine. Nest another table or div inside though and the background color vanishes.
  3. No support for float or position - Completely breaking any CSS based layouts right from the word go. Tables only.
  4. Shocking box model support - Very poor support for padding and margin, and you thought IE5 was bad!

Microsoft have released a full run down of what is and isn't supported, including a downloadable validator that helps you validate your HTML for their engine. Word of warning though, it only works with Microsoft software and Dreamweaver.

To give you a quick example of just how far backwards we've gone, here's a screenshot of the Campaign Monitor newsletter (which uses CSS for layout) in Outlook 2000 and 2007. Yes folks, that's seven long years difference.

The Campaign Monitor newsletter in Outlook 2000

Outlook 2000

 The Campaign Monitor newsletter in Outlook 2007

Outlook 2007

This really is a game changer. Previously you could send a HTML email in the comfort that the majority of your recipients would have very good CSS support. Other email clients were also catching up. Thunderbird uses the Firefox rendering engine, the new Yahoo! Mail beta has great CSS support. Things were looking good for us CSS based email designers.

Unfortunately, that all goes down the toilet now. If your email breaks in Notes or Eudora, it was often an acceptable casualty, but if it breaks in Outlook, you're more than likely ostracizing too many recipients to justify your design approach. This certainly doesn't spell the end for HTML email, it just takes us back 5 years where tables and nasty inline CSS was the norm.

Imagine for a second that the new version of IE7 killed off the majority of CSS support and only allowed table based layouts. The web design world would be up in arms! Well, that's exactly what the new version of Outlook does to email designers.

What's the reasoning behind this?

After picking up the contents of my desk off the floor and taking a few deep breaths, I tried to come up with a few decent reasons why Microsoft would go in this direction. Here's what I came up with.

  1. Security - But wait! Microsoft have touted Internet Explorer as "a major step forward in security". Surely they'd just replace the IE6 rendering engine with IE7 and be done with it. I'd also love to know how float and position impacts the security of an email in any way.
  2. Consistent rendering - By default Outlook uses the Word engine to create HTML emails, which it's done for years now. Perhaps Microsoft figured that in order to keep the look and feel of emails consistent between Outlook users they'd display emails using the same engine that created them. But what about the millions of other email newsletters out there that aren't created with Outlook or Word? If an email is created with Outlook, then surely it should display perfectly in a modern browser like IE7.
  3. They hate us - OK, this one might be pushing it, but I'm running out of explanations here. Don't get me wrong, we're not Microsoft bashers here. Both our products are developed on Microsoft's .NET platform and we've been a fan of their development environment for the better part of a decade. But seriously, they've taken 5 important years off the email design community in one fell swoop.

At least they've still got Hotmail, right?

Well, no. We've been doing plenty of testing with the new version of Hotmail (Windows Live Mail) for an upcoming article and it turns out that like Outlook 2007, Live Mail is actually a step backwards for us email designers. At least Hotmail ignored all CSS (except for inline CSS) and you could force it to roll back to a nicely formatted rich text email.

Instead, Windows Live Mail displays some CSS but, you guessed it, limited support for floats and no positioning. It's looking like table based layouts all round at Microsoft for the next few years at least.

Where to from here?

We've been spending the better part of the last 2 years encouraging designers to embrace accessible and standards compliant email design, but frustratingly that position may no longer hold much weight. Just yesterday, Jonathan Nicol said:

None of these limitations is going to make the task of designing HTML emails impossible, but they will ensure that no advances are made in this field for a good number of years. Remember, it's been four years since the last version of Outlook was released, so I‚'m going to guess it'll be at least six years before Outlook 2007 drops off the edge of the map.

Sadly, I couldn't agree more. While this is certainly a big blow, the reality is that many of us are going to have to scale back our email templates to years past and stick with tables and inline CSS if we want consistent looking emails in Outlook and Windows Live Mail. For a quick example, our sample email templates use a table based layout combined with some simple CSS.

Template changes aside, I don't see why we have to take it lying down. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this news. Perhaps if we get together as a community and explain to Microsoft how damaging this change really is, we can encourage some real change, or at the very least get the discussion started.

What say you, email designers?

Update 1: Welcome Digg users. With the anti-HTML email comments rolling in, I just want to clarify one thing here. This has nothing to do with the text/HTML email debate and won't stop people sending HTML email. All it means is that a lot of HTML emails in Outlook will be garbled and difficult to read. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks also to those posting constructive comments. It seems this situation might have plenty to do with Microsoft having to separate the browser from the OS for anti-trust reasons.

Update 2: We've just posted a follow up article that explains Microsoft's reasoning behind this change and exactly what we can do about it if we want it changed.

Update 3: The time for complaining about this change or debating HTML vs plain text has passed. Read why we need to look forward and start doing our own part to improve standards support in HTML email.

Posted in:

516 Comments

  1. Aen Tan
    January 13, 2007 6:18am

    I design emails from time to time and I have to say I’m frightened by this news.
    My already deep hate for microsoft retards just got deeper.

    This should be let known to all others.

    I hope the world start using Apple Mail by buying Macs or other better email clients like Thunderbird for the PC.

    Ridiculous!!!

  2. Lalalalala
    January 13, 2007 6:22am

    I know what you can all do. You can just shut up and wear it. Microsoft has an email monopoly to support you know? You can’t very well expect them to sit back and just watch as open source exchange replacements are being developed. The obvious solution is to make the client as proprietary as inhumanely possible. I say three cheers for the master.

  3. Lalalalala
    January 13, 2007 6:26am

    Ooh, they could rename it I-email for ironic effect.

  4. cc
    January 13, 2007 6:30am

    Just like my Magic 8-ball used to say:

    Outlook not so good

  5. Xman
    January 13, 2007 6:40am

    I use outlook - it’s fine. Particularly because it lets me delete all mail that has HTML in it automatically.

    Plain text or I won’t look at it.

  6. Albert
    January 13, 2007 6:42am

    If you have to create your email to support a wide range of clients, including webmail, you wind up using a lot less than what Microsoft supports. GMail, Yahoo and Hotmail all have different requirements from application-based email clients, since they actually rewrite (mangle?) your HTML/CSS for presentation purposes.

    It’s really not that bad, people. Just use some common sense and test the hell out of it. And always remember to include a text-based version for the Luddites who are scared of moving past 1992.

  7. Vince
    January 13, 2007 6:58am

    Then stick with Outlook 2000.  You don’t need to use 2007 if it sucks.

  8. relativ
    January 13, 2007 7:04am

    Another option is to use the awesome email program, Foxmail.  It uses IE to render and has tons of other great features.. easy to backup.. you can just move the whole folder to another system and fire it up… all your mail is there.

    It has its origins in China, but is fully functional in English.

    Get the English version here..

    http://goodfreesoftware.netfirms.com/foxmail/foxmail.htm

    rel.

  9. Biff
    January 13, 2007 7:11am

    Dave, umm…
    You will still get HTML, just crappier HTML! why would you applaud this?

  10. Dave M.
    January 13, 2007 7:12am

    Others have stated it here. However, I’m going to ask if you have seen Leopards support for Mail.app?

    Background graphics, HTML stationary, etc… Looks like Microsoft is trying to distance itself from Apple by stepping backwards instead of forwards. :)

  11. Mike
    January 13, 2007 7:21am

    We do both text and html emails at my work for Fortune 500 companies.  Were pretty strict on what the guts of our emails have.  Everything is HTML 4.  Full table based designs *no CSS* because so many email programs strip it out. 

    We have a hard enough time developing websites for IE6 and IE7.  And now we have to deal with a Word based rendering engine for Outlook 2007 emails!  Why even bother allowing html then?!?!  You’ve effectively crippled any layout that needs to have text on top of a background!  Doh!  Didn’t think about that did ya?!?!

  12. Vidar
    January 13, 2007 7:38am

    Wow, this is brilliant!

    Now that the poor IE developers have finally plugged “all” (*cough*) the security holes in their HTML engine, Outlook switches to the much less tested Word engine. Brilliant. I envision a horde of new exploits, worms and trojans popping up in no time. Time to buy anti-virus company shares?

  13. coolsax
    January 13, 2007 7:42am

    Funny to hear all these platitudes like:
    “Email is for text” & “HTML is for webpages”
    Who made those rules or limitations. Think about it, e-mail (or electronic mail) is just another way of sending information. If you want to compare it to regular snail mail, even snail mail includes differents fonts of text, different background and images for logos and such. Email used to be just text because that was all the medium could provide at the time. Times have changed. HTML is a markup language for (guess what) text. Why not use it for rendering text in emails. Seems only natural. Why should it be limited to the “the web”.
    All this is beside the point anyway. This step isn’t getting rid of HTML emails, it just makes it so you are forced to use antiquated means of creating them that are poorly structured and slower to render. It also means that these poorly designed HTML emails will be more widespread.
    Just a though.

  14. Nick
    January 13, 2007 7:53am

    “I’d also love to know how float and position impacts the security of an email in any way.”

    Spammers use floating text to obfuscate words to avoid spam filters, so it is a security feature. I’m no Microsoft fan but I’m glad they’ve done this… who needs all that fancy html in an email anyway… no-one except spammers and advertisers. I agree with Nate above that text and basic html is fine for sending someone an email.

  15. Windows Hater
    January 13, 2007 8:03am

    Microsoft Sucks!

  16. Justin Beasley
    January 13, 2007 8:13am

    As a webmaster in charge of maintaining our large e-mail list, this is a crippling blow to us.  Microsoft has to understand this, because I just checked all of their e-mails that they send me and even they won’t render correctly in Outlook 2007!

    Someone needs to start a petition to get them to change it.

    And regardless of whether or not you like HTML e-mail, when a user opts-in to a mailing and chooses to recieve that mailing via a produced HTML e-mail, we as web professionals are required to deliver a good product.  If the user opts-in to a plaintext mailing, then we are to still deliver the best overall layout that we can in the best interest of our users.

    Being unable to render decent HTML e-mails will cripple our field . . . and regardless of what Microsoft says about security, I would trust the IE7 engine more than the Word engine any day.  The IE7 engine is more frequently updated, better tested, and more highly critisized by outside security firms—making it a much better choice in that area.

  17. Tom Chi
    January 13, 2007 8:13am

    I worked on Outlook 2007 when I was at Microsoft, and I can answer some of your questions.  Older versions of Outlook supported a variety of editing/rendering/viewing technologies for the composing and reading of email.  In Outlook 2007 this was consolidated to use the Word engine as you have noted.  Given the timing of the releases and the way that IT departments deploy Office, it wouldn’t be feasible to automatically move people to the more secure IE7 at the point that Office is deployed.  It would create too large a barrier to entry to have to make both changes at once.

    In terms of security and stability, IE6 did have a host of unsavory interactions with Outlook.  IE-related components appeared often as a source of Outlook instability, and a good number of IE-centered vulnerabilities transferred over to the product as well (despite significant anti-phishing and beacon-blocking efforts).

    Anyhow, I know that doesn’t fix any of the issues you listed, but at least it gives you background as to why this path was taken.  Clearly the team doesn’t “hate” its customers, but in software as in many things, there are trade-offs to make (especially for products that have 10 years of legacy).  Perhaps this trade-off was a mistake.  Regardless, thanks for your writeup.

  18. Kylie Manders
    January 13, 2007 8:15am

    I have never noticed this problem and have been using Office 2007 for 6 months! 

    Dude I think you are confused!

  19. Thomas in Tasmania
    January 13, 2007 8:16am

    WoW! Yes, you are right!

    Why should anybody have the choice to create and broadcast standards compliant HTML-based email to their online community or audience?

    Yes, lets all give thanks for Outlook 2007. . . another “Anti-Innovation” brought to you by MS.

    Hmmmm . . . . I wonder how the iPhone’s (or whatever name the lawyers give it) hand-held MUA will compare to MS’s “new” flagship desktop mail client in terms of embracing standards and delivering a powerful and satisfying experience for both users and designers?

    Errrr. . . . can’t wait for that “Zune-phone”, eh?

  20. Ian Pitts
    January 13, 2007 8:26am

    Wow… what a bunch of DIGG trolls here. I guess you all read your email the command line in Unix as well?

    The fact remains that for legitimate businesses, HTML emails just perform better with the highly interactive and profoundly visual computer user base of today.

    Spammers will continue to send their huge image containing text about the latest penny-stock and it will work just fine in Outlook 2007. Sadly, those of us wanting to communicate with our customers and prospects as efficiently as possible will no longer be able to have our emails render correctly most of the time…

  21. Ryan
    January 13, 2007 8:27am

    When I’m sending email LETTERS I like to have everything in plane text.

    But when I’m receiving marketing emails, my Amazon update/suggestion email for example I want an easy to read and quick to view layout.  It’s far easier to read an email such as the amazon suggestion email in styled HTML format then it is to scroll through plane text trying to figure out what the heck they’re saying.

    The simple fact is plane text is good for email letters, html is good for email marketing. If spammers use use html/css to get their stuff to you then it’s the spam blocker that needs improving no the html removing.

    It appears many people here are to ignorant to understand this.

    *sigh*

  22. Ted
    January 13, 2007 8:31am

    I agree with you Jeff.  basic HTML is fine.

    CSS is an abomination. Just use Bitmap graphics if you want pixel perfect graphics.  CSS is ‘cheap tricks’.  Just make an image, you don’t need ‘smoothed text’ just anti-alias the text in your image.

    Images work fine, just no more junk.  I’m loving this.

  23. Bubby
    January 13, 2007 8:31am

    Anyone want to start a quick voting system for each post here? Simple - Post the posters name and put “Designer/Marketer” or “IT” to identify them.

    Point is - there are two camps - almost ALWAYS will be. Stop the black and white and realize we both need to co-exist.

  24. penduin
    January 13, 2007 8:32am

    Never underestimate the counterproductiveness of Microsoft.  I personally don’t like or use HTML in my email but honestly, this is just stupid.  If they’re that scared about inheriting IE’s insecurity, maybe they should, I don’t know, try to make IE more secure?  And, “consistency”?  Are they joking?

    ...Why does everyone use Microsoft’s crap, again?  It never fails to baffle me.  Supporting their platforms is the bane of existence for programmers and publishers everywhere.  Add up all the time everybody’s wasted with workarounds and other nonsense because of Microsoft’s incompetence and you’d have enough man-years to switch an enormous number of people away from those platforms and onto something that’s actually useful.

  25. Frank
    January 13, 2007 8:35am

    It’s because of moves like this that I will continue to proclaim that Microsoft sucks. They’re a member of the W3C, but they only support bits and pieces of accepted HTML and CSS standards. It’s bad enough they they make up their own HTML/CSS rules for IE. I’d rather they didn’t support HTML at all than “slightly” support it like this.

  26. RZ
    January 13, 2007 8:35am

    Yes, it wil help stop HTML email.

    The worse HTML email support gets, the less people will use it.

  27. Frank
    January 13, 2007 8:42am

    Google, if you’re listening, the time is now. Kill Microsoft now. Do it for the people.

  28. Grayson Stebbins
    January 13, 2007 8:45am

    I’m relatively confident Microsoft has mostly good intentions. I really think they just. don’t. get it. It’s sad, looking down on MS land ‚Äì they live in their own world.

  29. lel
    January 13, 2007 8:51am

    Continue using CSS. Information and presentation should be separated anyway (see csszengarden). If anything, the outlook2007-screenshot above shows that even if it doesn’t understand one bit of the CSS-design it is still readable.

    (according to firebug, I get a JS-error for every keystroke)

  30. Porter
    January 13, 2007 8:52am

    For consumers who want only plain-text email, configure your email client to do that.  Hoping that this will mean less HTML email is a hope that will never be fulfilled - HTML emails sells products, thus it’s here to stay.  We’re not going to start seeing text-only TV commercials.  Besides, some commercials we like, same with HTML email.  Depends on the quality and relevance.

    This just seems lazy by MS.  If this is for anti-trust reasons, geez, use an open source rendering engine in Outlook.  You’ll make friends. 

    For those who say HTML does not belong in HTML, I say you’re wrong.  HTML is a language meant to create well-structured *documents*.  Emails are documents every bit as much as a web site is.  Someone sending HTML that is inappropriate for the email medium (i.e. “a fully-functional web site”) does not mean all good (i.e. modern, standards-compliant) email should be punished.  Bad solution (actually, a non-solution) to a real problem.  Seems the real solution would be that ol’ marketplace thing: if you don’t like the email… unsubscribe.

  31. Robert
    January 13, 2007 8:57am

    I hate to have to say this, but I would ban HTML email completely if I was given the chance.

    Having managed a few email systems, all I can say is that HTML mail is more trouble than it’s worth. Thunderbird handles HTML much better, and importantly - more safely. However, whilst Outlook remains the dominant email client, I would avoid HTML mail at all costs.

  32. Blake
    January 13, 2007 9:06am

    I agree with Robert. I despise HTML emails, they just create problems. If you can’t do it with text, do it in an attachment.

  33. jhn
    January 13, 2007 9:08am

    I’m not sure that Word’s HTML engine is worse.  It might mangle some stuff pretty badly but IE has always been bad at CSS.  It mangles the Acid test.  Word might display some other content better than IE.

  34. Ryan
    January 13, 2007 9:10am

    Living in the past and not progressing is evil, if you want that then stop using teh interweb!

    html looked shit in it’s early years and had people proclaiming all sites should be plane text only (since that is what HTML was designed for)...would we have what we have today if morons like that got their way? html emails suck because spam blockers are substandard and email clients such as Outlook are usless.

  35. Zal
    January 13, 2007 9:14am

    I stopped using IE6 a year ago, making FireFox my default browser.
    At least for the last 3 months I using almost exclusively Opera.
    It’s much more superior to both FF and IE. Not only the browser is a few generations ahead of the rest, but the nicely integrated email client is superior and pleasure to use.
    I encourage everybody to use Opera. You’ll be glad.

    Now, if you want a secure email solution, forget about OE,Outlook,Thunderbird…
    PocoMail is the answer. Like Opera, it’s a few generation ahead of all the rest.
    It’s not free though, but $40 to pay, it’s a tiny price to have peace of mind and enjoy the effectiveness of this program with tons of features.
    Another good one, free, Pegasus, which is also much more superior than Outlook and thunderbird.

  36. KW
    January 13, 2007 9:25am

    My problem with HTML emails:

    They are an unsolicited use of my bandwidth. They tie up my down pipe, they fill my inbox to overflowing and cause me to miss important emails. And I have no choice. The email comes to my address, down my pipe and into my inbox before I can say “Ni!”.

    I cannot stop it from being delivered. I can only delete it after the fact. After it has used my pipe. After it has landed on my drive.

    I should be able to CHARGE such emailers a fee. I’d be RICH!

    There may be some legitimate senders of HTML emails out there, but for every legitimate sender, there are 10 illegitimate senders who think I want to buy Viagra, or enlarge my breasts or genitals, or am a stocks day trader, or am gullible enough to fall for nigerian bank fraud schemes.

    If email were plain text I’d still get all of those. But they wouldn’t be accompanied by 100K of .jpgs apiece.

  37. Ben
    January 13, 2007 9:31am

    Who at microsoft can we email our complaints to about this, to convince them to revert back to using IE as the outlook rendering engine?

  38. Bart
    January 13, 2007 10:09am

    Yeah, well.. at least Office 2007 has significant usability changes… But it’s really unbelievable then even some very vital parts of CSS v1 are missing. I’m sure someone will find a patch (perhaps write a virus? =) to adjust Outlook ‘07 back to IE bahaviour.

  39. jyhm
    January 13, 2007 10:14am

    I think one really needs to ditch microsoft products all together. Caveat I say this as I am trying to reinstall Office 2004 (it’s Dead). But, I really don’t need it that much, and I only use Entourage. I have other email apps that are just fine. I never use IE I hate it! I stick with Firefox.

  40. get_thunderbird
    January 13, 2007 10:23am

    There are a lot of Ms alternatives:

    Openoffice.org
    Firefox
    Thunderbird
    GNU/Linux

    So, we might as well stop using Ms completely.

  41. LC
    January 13, 2007 10:24am

    For those who want only text emails :

    As a website designer, I frequently send emails describing the websites I develop with snippets of screens in them.  It makes it far easier if the user has the image of the screen next to the descriptive text, rather than a “look at this attachment”, which has probably been blocked by their corporate firewall anyway.

    I like HTML mails, I rarely read any text-only mails.  Call me boring.

    I hate the spam mails but are we going to stay back in the days of GOPHER and stick to text only web as well?

    MS are cutting their own throat with this.  I personally don’t like firefox, I find it clumsy and cumbersome, but hey. each to their own.  Well it looks like I’ll stick to XP and Outlook 2003 myself, it does all I and my customers need it to do.

    “Shall I upgrade to Vista” they ask.  What’s the point ...
    “Shall I upgrade Office” they ask.  No.

  42. Standarshy
    January 13, 2007 10:31am

    Yay, this is good news for me.  It will just push more people to adopting Mozilla’s thunderbird.  Unless people are too stupid to figure it out.

    If people do really mind this and switch to Thunderbird, I’m sure that Microsoft will do something.  Remember the browser wars?

  43. Andrew
    January 13, 2007 10:35am

    The point isn’t that HTML emails are good/bad/fine. The point is that limited support for them is bad either way.

  44. Leckie
    January 13, 2007 10:46am

    This must be because of anti trust issues, there is no way microsoft would intentionally throw themselves in the shitter like this… is there?

  45. Montoya
    January 13, 2007 10:50am

    The comments in this thread are horrendous. Something like 100 or so of “HTML emails suck!” and another 50 of “you guys suck, get a real job!”

    I can’t believe everyone is complaining about spam and phishing e-mails… Campain Monitor doesn’t send spam ever, they are a legitimate business. If you want to complain about spammers, do it somewhere else!

    Also, the idea of going back to the dark ages of plain-text e-mails just because HTML opens up the opportunity for exploits is a bit backwards. We should be finding ways to stop spam so we can enjoy HTML e-mail without the risks. It’s the difference between being poor so no one can rob you or locking up your stuff so no one can rob you.

    As was mentioned earlier, this move from Microsoft does not end HTML e-mails, just makes them more cluttered, more bandwidth-heavy and more difficult to use. It may prevent some exploits that spammers use to trick users, but spammers will still find other ways to trick users… this move by Microsoft is not a good solution.

  46. Atanas Entchev
    January 13, 2007 10:54am

    Pine still works… ;)

  47. matthew smith
    January 13, 2007 11:09am

    David.
    I wish I could have been there to help you pick up things off the floor. I would have taken you to get a beer and we could co-miserate together. Thank you for an intelligent and helpful critique. I know many who would have simply ranted.

    If you have not already read through Transcending CSS by Andy Clarke, I suggest it. It details issues about allowing the reality that using products like what Microsoft is pouring into the industry could begin to be seen as a limited product rather than limiting the industry.

    Perhaps we need to do a better job of encouraging more and more people about the alternatives, albeit an extremely uphill battle. If you drive a fiesta (outlook), you’ll likely not go very far, very fast. Alternatively, if you drive a Jetta (mail osx, firebird, etc) you’ll enjoy your driving experience a whole lot more, and you might enjoy it enough to go for a drive in the country (get creative with html emails).

    Best of luck…

  48. Alistair Holt
    January 13, 2007 11:13am

    Microsoft’s actions are just absolutely ridiculous. I will be persuading everyone I know not to use Outlook.

    Down with Microsoft!

  49. Dimitris
    January 13, 2007 11:13am

    Well, apart from many of the reasons already noted, this Microsoft approach serves well yet another purpose. Breaking community standards is what this company has been doing for decades in order to establish their monopoly on the market. Now they are suggesting that in order to view a non plain ascii email you need their MS Word engine. This means less choices for people: “You want to do a job? Do it the MS way that only MS products offer!”. Got the point?

    Someone already said (quite correctly if this is true) that since IE is splitting from the windows shell, you need another way of displaying html. Well, it seems that their office suite is just replacing IE…

    So, since most people use and trust Microsoft products they must be satisfied with what they get (i am referring to sane people). If not, they would have moved from MS years ago (as i did). No reason to complain then. You like MS products/tactics, cool, go ahead and use their software. If you complain you must show this to MS by stop paying them. Simple as that.

  50. Omar
    January 13, 2007 12:01pm

    I am not sure what I missed here. I have been using outlook 2007 for a month and I can send and receive HTML e-mails with no problem.
    it is a supported feature in Outlook 2007. where did this news come from???

    Check out the outlook site:
    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HP012329961033.aspx?pid=CH100776981033

Comments for this entry are closed.

Browse the Blog

  1. Behind the Scenes (28)
  2. Interviews & Buzz (132)
  3. New Features & Updates (229)
  4. Observations & Answers (210)
  5. Release Notes (1)
  6. Tips & Resources (478)

Explore the Email Gallery

@herron_bird That’s totally awesome - thank you for checking out worldview! :D ^RH

Follow us on Twitter