Showing attachments when printing emails from Outlook 2002, XP
 

Problem -

When printing emails from Outlook XP that have attachments - sometimes the
attachments show up and sometimes they don't !

When I say 'show up' I mean that the attachment name is printed, or
sometimes an Icon for the attachment is printed and sometimes not.

What is most bizzare is that it is not consistent, sometimes Word Documents
show up as Word Icons, sometimes as document.doc names, sometimes no
mention of an attachment at all !

I have tried to find a pattern but can not discern one at all. Emails that
are forwarded seem to suffer just as much randomness as emails sent or
received.

I have also checked whether the original meassages were sent as Plain Text
or HTML - this does not appear to be relevant - it is most perplexing !


Any help or light shed on this would be great, Thanks

Showing attachments when printing emails from Outlook 2002, XP
 

It's the email format that determines this. Rich Text Format would show the
icon for the attachment in the body of the email. Plain Text and HTML would
show it on an attachment line.

--
Kathleen Orland
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
http://www.howto-outlook.com/



"Isissoft" wrote:

Problem -

When printing emails from Outlook XP that have attachments - sometimes the
attachments show up and sometimes they don't !

When I say 'show up' I mean that the attachment name is printed, or
sometimes an Icon for the attachment is printed and sometimes not.

What is most bizzare is that it is not consistent, sometimes Word Documents
show up as Word Icons, sometimes as document.doc names, sometimes no
mention of an attachment at all !

I have tried to find a pattern but can not discern one at all. Emails that
are forwarded seem to suffer just as much randomness as emails sent or
received.

I have also checked whether the original meassages were sent as Plain Text
or HTML - this does not appear to be relevant - it is most perplexing !


Any help or light shed on this would be great, Thanks

Showing attachments when printing emails from Outlook 2002, XP
 

it's usually controlled by the message format.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips by email:


Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Isissoft" wrote in message
...
Problem -

When printing emails from Outlook XP that have attachments - sometimes the
attachments show up and sometimes they don't !

When I say 'show up' I mean that the attachment name is printed, or
sometimes an Icon for the attachment is printed and sometimes not.

What is most bizzare is that it is not consistent, sometimes Word
Documents
show up as Word Icons, sometimes as document.doc names, sometimes no
mention of an attachment at all !

I have tried to find a pattern but can not discern one at all. Emails that
are forwarded seem to suffer just as much randomness as emails sent or
received.

I have also checked whether the original meassages were sent as Plain Text
or HTML - this does not appear to be relevant - it is most perplexing !


Any help or light shed on this would be great, Thanks

Showing attachments when printing emails from Outlook 2002, XP
 

Isissoft, you wrote on 31 Mar 2007 11:03:28 GMT:

When printing emails from Outlook XP that have attachments - sometimes the
attachments show up and sometimes they don't !

Printing the attachment's icon is only possible with emails in text
format. With HTML mails it's not possible (beside in Outlook 2003 SP1 or
higher)

--
Best Regards
Christian Goeller
http://www.outlookfaq.net

Showing attachments when printing emails from Outlook 2002, XP
 

Isissoft wrote:

When printing emails from Outlook XP that have attachments -
sometimes the attachments show up and sometimes they don't !

You didn't believe me when I answered this question for you yesterday. Now
you have two more answers saying the same thing.
--
Brian Tillman