Rich Text vs. HTML (again)

mreidco_at_yahoo.com
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: 10 Jan 2005 13:53:37 -0800

In Outlook 2002, I use Rich Text as my default format for new mail. I
believe the default is HTML format.

I know some here advocate plain text only, but the formatting options
offered in Rich Text and HTML are useful for my purposes.

I switched from HTML to Rich Text because I found that editing in HTML
is very quirky -- line spacing, paragraph formatting, etc., often don't
behave the way I expect. Composing or editing an email in Rich Text, on
the other hand, is fairly trouble-free.

I've seen a lot of messages in this group from MVPs advising people not
to use Rich Text because it generates a .dat file attachment to
external (Internet) recipients who don't use Outlook. I think, though,
that Outlook 2002 has a simple solution. There's an option to convert
Rich Text mail to HTML when sending to Internet recipients. (This
option is located through Tools / Options / Mail Format tab / Internet
Format button.)

It seems to me that with this configuration, I can continue to compose
mail in RTF and not bother anyone with .dat attachments. Indeed, though
I've operated this way for several months, I've yet to hear a complaint
about a .dat file (nor any about HTML either).
Is there a problem with this approach that I've overlooked?