Outlook: E-mail formats

Plain Text x x HTML Rich Text

Always bothered to write emails with the smallest sizes possible, but always used the Microsoft Outlook. I always thought that the "Plain Text" was the most compact format, because it does not use any special formatting of source. Ledo mistake ... The test shows that it is not so.

Test Methodology:

The first test was done with a source file containing plaintext totaling 100KB (TextoEnvioEmail.txt). The tests were made in Microsoft Outlook 2003 SP3, sending e-mails in three formats (Plain Text, HTML e Rich Text), using the default editor for Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word.

The second test used as a source file in Microsoft Word (TextoEnvioEmail.doc), Also 100KB, being sent in three formats and using both editors.

OBS: To change formats and enable Microsoft Word as the default editor, just access; "Tools > Options > Mail Format "in Microsoft Outlook.

Results:

1º Test:

Source File (TextoEnvioEmail.txt | 100KB)

2º Test:

Source File (TextoEnvioEmail.doc | 100KB) 

Conclusion:

As can be seen in the tables, format Rich Text shot with wins over the final size of the email generated. He manages to compress a text only 100KB in 22KB. The disadvantage of this format is not possible to add an image directly into the body of the email, but for daily emails it is hardly used. This format is also recommended for a known environment, as a company where customers e-mail are known and recognize this format. To send external, you can use HTML or Plain Text.

What impressed me most was the Plain Text the first test, generating an email to double the size of the source file. This is something I could not understand. Must be a bug in Outlook.