Slashdot Mirror
You've Got Mail -- Tons Of It
Daniel Goldman writes "The Baltimore Sun has an article about the City of Baltimore's email problem." A snippet: "Millions of old e-mail messages are clogging Baltimore's municipal computers, so the city is going to start automatically deleting any messages older than 90 days.
A common practice in private business, the move raises questions when made by a municipality, which has a responsibility to retain certain public records." Goldman points out "Just think about all the potential law suits; 'if it's not there, they can't subpoena it.'"
Since they need to delete tons of old messages spam included, but want to save official email, why don't they train a Bayesian Filter to sort through and save as much as possible. Since they can't rely on their employees actually saving each message which was official to their hard drives.
~ there are 10 types of people in this world, those that can read binary and those that can't
There are two technical culprits here:
1. On-line storage. There's no reason to keep all of everyone's mail on-line on the server (a la IMAP or proprietary MS Exchange) instead of offline on their PC's (a la POP, most often seen with Eudora for non-techies). With offline storage, the servers don't clog, and you can keep as much mail as you like.
The biggest rap agains off-line storage is that you can't control what people do with their mail or how they store it. My old job had a neat solution for this: Eudora downloaded your mail, but stored it on a file server. Each employee had 100 GB or something very large. It worked great; the SMTP/POP servers were never full, and everyone could keep their email.
2. Ridiculous stupid bullshit HTML rich-text mail crap. Can you tell I have a bias here? Aside from being annoying, HTML mail can take up to ten times the size of plain old text. Some of the HTML generated by common email programs is just terrible; filled with repeating tags for every line, and just wasting an incredible amount of space for absolutely zero benefit. (Outlook is bad, but there are others that are just as bad.)
There's no excuse for not fixing these problems. Someday someone's going to tell a court they had to delete mail for these reasons, and someone else is going to explain exactly why they're wrong. Until then, people who want to delete mail for legal reasons will hide behind false technical reasons.
The spam problem is unlikely to go away until people start treating it like the attack on the Internet that it is.
I've noticed an annoying trend lately that e-mail sent to businesses is frequently getting just ignored. Certainly it seems much more frequent this year than in the past. I've wondered if this is simply because so many e-mail boxes are getting filled up as fast as the spammers can send.
I'd suspect that the city of Baltimore wouldn't be having any problems if spam weren't such a problem. If the number of messages they had to deal with dropped by 5 to 20 times (depending on which estimates of current spam levels you believe), they could probably just leave the mail where it is.
This is all something I've been struggling with, being a small business owner doing business on the net. My company of 5 people gets between 4,000 and 20,000 borderline spams per day. By borderline, I mean that we throw away obvious viruses and things which score above a certain score in SpamAssasin (I think it's 9). So, that doesn't count the super spammy messages.
If it weren't for our fairly strict and complicated spam blocker setup, and a very powerful machine, we couldn't get the few hundred messages per day that are of interest to us. Spam is killing e-mail. I'm not sure why more people aren't treating it as an attack, but it's really hard to get anyone's interest to take some action. Canceling accounts doesn't even begin to solve the problem.
In the mean time, the City of Baltimore is suffering...
Sean
OMFG, we nearly had a lynch mob attack us when we began deleting mail older than *two years* -- it eventually took the intervention of the CFO and a faked mail system "crash" to make 2-year max retention work, and even then there are people still pissed about it, or who claim that "the client" requires them to retain all correspondence (nope, sorry, we checked the contract).
.PST files, which often max out at 2 gig and can get corrupted way too easily, not to mention being fdisked into eternity by clueless helpdesk people.
90 days seems both unrealistic to implement and way too much reliance on
As far as I've been able to figure out, this arose from a lawsuit against the county where an e-mail retrived from two years previous proved a county commissioner to be taking bribes in a zoning issue.
Rather than fix the corruption, just ensure that it's covered up more efficiently. Gotta love local governments.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
At one company that I worked for, they got the brilliant idea to delete all email older than 30 days. They also didn't want employees to make backups of their personal mailboxes. They intentionally wanted all traces of old email to disappear. While I'm sure that it made the lawyers happy, it caused a lot of grief for the people actually doing work for the customer. Many design decisions, bug reports and other important things were only documented in email messages. This is supposed to be the age of the paperless office, right? When you are involved in a multi-year project, you often need to refer to old messages. It also had the effect of making old policy memos disappear, whose existence had proved to be very inconvenient to management on several notable occasions.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Right. Our company originally tried to instate size limits when we went to Notes (only 3 years ago), but then the lawyers said we need to keep everything anyway (HIPAA requirements). So even with the exorbitant expense of the system, it is probably still cheaper to keep expanding every couple months rather than pay people to sit there and sort through their own email. Anything from an external party must be kept, and anything remotely regarding a customer must be kept as well. It's a huge pain, and they took the easy way out by archiving every single email. But neither option is very cost effective. There are four people that I know of in my department alone that have email boxes (extensively categorized with dozens or up to hundreds of folders) with up to 20GB each. It's crazy. But even without the ever looming threat of a lawsuit, they claim that they have been able to disprove what other people were badmouthing them about by being able to produce an email from that person stating the exact opposite a year or two previously. I've witnessed it once, and it is pretty funny watching somebody turn beet red in a room with 25 supervisor's and above.