Diane Poremsky said:
All email clients mark (aka "quote") prior content in some manner so
you can tell the new content from the old. To many people, "old" is
"history"... apparently not to either of you.
Since /inline/ forwarding always contains an *edited* copy of the
original, how can it be considered history? The headers are stripped
when forwarding inline. Users edit the inline copy all the time and
the recipient won't know. Users also often insert their own comments
within the quoted material, like addressing a point at a time with a
rebuttal or reply. While possible to attach an edited version,
e-mails sent as attachments are far more likely to be the unedited
version of the original e-mail.
Also, users can often chose whether to indent or not, which quoting
character to use, whether whitespace characters get removed between
multiple quote characters (at different quoting levels), using HTML to
format the indentation or delineation rather than quote characters,
and other schemes that they personally like but are definitely not the
de facto standard. I'm surprised, as Brian states, that OL2007 even
tries to separate the quoted material from the "new" material
(although the entire e-mail is new if inline forwarding was used).
If Outlook or an add-in is attempting decipher what part of an e-mail
is the quoted "history" then, as typical with Microsoft, they are
attempting to do something that the RFC was not designed to provide
for e-mails. The quoted material was never intended to be
uncorruptible.