Also, some of my users and I use Google's gmail as our personal email service. We've gotten used to the way gmail presents groups of messages a single "Conversation". If you're unfamiliar with gmail's conversation feature go see the turorial.
I set out to provide an easy way to accomplish the concept of conversations in Outlook. Outlook's built in functionality is to click on a message that you've replied to, then click on the information bar and select "Show related messages". However, you have to open each related message individually to view them (no preview pane).
I set out to add "Find Conversation" to the bottom of the context menu when you right click on an email. When clicked it would send a request to Windows Desktop Search resulting in a list of all emails in the requested conversation as well as a quick way to preview each email.
After hunting around the web and picking pieces of code from here and there (and adding a few lines of my own), I came up with a working solution. It's only been tested with Outlook 2003, but I can't see why it wouldn't work at least as far back as Outlook 2000 (don't quote me though).
Here's what the menu looks like.
Head over to Microsoft's Channel9 MSN Search wiki to get the code and step by step instructions on how to install. Mine is Answer #2.
Bonus Blog Info!!
There is one gotcha I've encountered with WDS, but it's a big one. Do NOT set up multiple WDS clients on your network to point to the same share on the server. It causes big problems. I tried to get some feedback on it in the newsgroups to no avail.
The Channel9 wiki is the only place I could find where WDS feature requests and bug reports might actually be heard. See my second attempt at explaining the problem here. And yet another attempt at explaining it can be found here (Gordon is part owner of BrightWire, a consultant I use to help solve particularly frustrating network problems).
Moral to the Bonus Blog Info? Don't index network drives!! The problem hasn't been solved (or even acknowleged as far as I can tell) yet.