print email noting attachments (2002)

Topic

New Reply

Is there a way in Outlook 2002 to list the email attachment(s) when printing the email; i.e. the header would show From, Sent, To, Subject, and Attachments.
It works in 2003’s version, but I can’t figure out where the switch is in 2002.

Thanks.

Reply | Quote

Replies

The messages are probably in HTML format. There is a bug in Outlook 2002 that prevents attachment icons from being printed in HTML format messages. One option is to select Edit | Edit Message, then Format | Plain Text. Attachment icons will now be printed with the message. Close the message without saving if you don’t want to lose the original format.

post 322,828 contains a macro you can use to print messages with a list of attachments.

Reply | Quote

Hi Hans: This works great for one email at a time but is there a way to set this as a default for all emails. I tried changing the settings in tools > options > Mail Format > compose in this message format: Plain text and Rich text, but this did not work.
Thanks..Susan

Reply | Quote

That setting change doesn’t effect incoming/received messages. And I’m not sure about 2002, but I don’t recall that Tools | Options | Email Options | View all standard mail in plain text will fix the printing problem.

However, as noted in the second last sentence of that post: “you could replace your default print button with one that calls the ‘PrintWithAttNames’ sub”. You should be able to use View | Customize to attach the Macro to the Print Icon.

The code doesn’t handle the printing of multiple selected messages, to do so both routines would need some tweaking.

Reply | Quote

The code in the attached text file will handle one single or multiple selected items (and it’s improved from my old version.) Post back if you need assistance attaching it to the Print Icon.

Reply | Quote

Hi Hans,

A person from a law firm asked me almost the same question a few days ago for Outlook 2003. I’ve now tried this on 2 PCs with Outlook 2003 and I’m not sure I see an acceptable solution. Maybe the bug is still there?

When printing the email in HTML format, there is no Icon on the attachment row of the email header.

When I change the format to plain text, I get a line in the email header that just has the file name. But the printing process seems to duplicate the attachment in the body (hard to tell where the header ends and the body begins) and the icon appears over the file name and then comes my body text.

If we have any lawyers out reading this thread (or IT people in law firms), I’d be interested to know how critical it is from a legal perspective (maybe for evidentiary purposes?) to have the icon print in the Attachment line of the header, as opposed to just the file name (even tho I see both on the screen). Further, if it is critical, how useful is it to switch to plain text format which, at least in my case, seems to duplicate the attachment as I described above (perhaps rendering the printed version useless from an evidentiary perspective since it is not exactly what is on my screen).

Thanks.

Fred

PS – good to see the lounge back in business.

Reply | Quote

The problem should have been fixed in Office 2003 SP1, but there are several mentions of the problem persisting even in SP2.

Others will have to comment on the legal aspects of this problem.

Reply | Quote

Since you are in the US, JScher2000 is active in the Outlook Forum, and may give you some legal pointers. (I’d expect a law firm would already have a document maintenance and retention policy.)

Reply | Quote

John,

Thks. I don’t know if Jefferson looks at the Outlook board. If I don’t hear from him in a day or so, I’ll send him a post asking him to look at the thread.

Fred

Reply | Quote

I use Outlook 2003. I can’t imagine why I would need an icon to print between the word “Attachment:” and the names of the attached files. Certainly nothing that would justify making any changes to the message itself.

Reply | Quote

Hi Jefferson,

That’s kind of what I thought. But what’s my little ole paralegal-opinion worth as far as this goes?

Fred

Reply | Quote