Microsoft was the subject of complaints, and a massive Twitter campaign, complaining that Outlook displays HTML emails poorly. The complaint is based in how Outlook uses the Microsoft Word rendering engine to display HTML content, with the end-result sometimes being disorganized. Previously, Outlook 2000 relied on Internet Explorer to display HTML.

The campaign, based on the web site www.fixoutlook.org, sent tens of thousand of tweets on the subject. After 24,000 tweets in the first day, volume is down to about a thousand a day now.

Microsoft has no plans to change its strategy, and has said that it will continue using Word for rendering HTML in Outlook 2010. Those who are protesting the move do have a point, in that some of the more complex HTML layouts don’t work well (such as tables or background images), although for most routine HTML emails, there’s very little difference.

There is also a security consideration at work here, and using Word to render HTML does deliver a security advantage that can’t be disputed. Web browsers execute all the HTML code, but Word is not able to run active content, which is a factor in favor of keeping the Word rendering engine with Outlook–giving Outlook users an extra edge in the fight against malware attacks. The added risk may in fact be small, but in ensuring email security, there’s really no one approach. A multi-layered approach to email security is the most advantageous, and this means using multiple precautions.

Standard HTML email is prevalent, and it’s favored by almost anybody sending any type of commercial email, but there’s an inherent risk in that it’s just easier to mask something malicious, send a piece of malware with the email, or include image-based web beacons.