Slashdot Mirror
White House Email Follies
Presto Vivace forwards a link detailing a recent House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the White House missing emails mess. David Gewirtz's report, carried in OutlookPower and DominoPower (in 6 parts, keep clicking), makes for scary reading. "If, in fact, the bulk of the White House email records are now stored in bundles of rotting PST files, all at or above their maximum safe load-level, that ain't good in a very big way... I object to using the inaccurate and inflated claim of excessive cost as a reason to avoid compliance with the Presidential Records Act."
They just need some excuse for "losing" dangerous email messages...
After all, it's not like there aren't answers to the question "how shall I archive my user's email for legal and regulatory purposes?" (Disclaimer- I work for a player in that market, but we're not on the first page of results for that search. So I don't feel too bad. Oh, wait - )
the safe load level of a pst is around 2gb , after that it is subject to corruption
as to the amount of data , email systems are the largest systems on earth these days encompassing tens of terabytes of data in their live stores and tens of petabytes on tape
and yes they should have an archiving system not just doing tape back up tape
p.S if they used an enterprise email system like lotus domino this would not be a problem after all thats what the CIA uses
men will do for beer
What exactly is the safe load level for a PST file?
About 1.9 GB on an older PST file and anymore will crap out.
Outlook 2003 and greater will allow 20gb files, but they become horrendously slow after 5 to 10 gb.
And yes.. People will store gigabytes of email on an exchange server... Usually when they are emailing large videos, photoshop files, or do Desktop publishing work. Though I wonder what the Whitehouse doing to take up that much space.
Certainaly it wasn't powerpoints on intelligence reports.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The problem, I believe, is that the Presidential Records Act has no enforcement provisions or penalties for non-compliance. Thus, if the White House prefers to ignore it, there's no risk in doing so. So if the value of non-compliance is higher than the value of compliance, which is the case right now, the PRA loses.
This is not simply a case of incompetent IT staff setting up a system badly. The White House had an email system that by all accounts worked very well, archiving everything properly, and it was shut down and the staff let go, and the new system was set up by someone over-ruling their own IT staff in order to make sure that it couldn't work properly. That means that someone made the decision to spend a lot of time and money to eliminate a system that worked properly, to replace it with a system that didn't, over-ruling the recommendations of their own IT staff, which can only have been done intentionally.
What would be ideal would be for the PRA to be given real teeth so that the cost of violating it becomes clearly higher than the cost of not hiding whatever it is you want hidden. Given the extremely high value of keeping embarrassing or illegal behavior secret, the penalty needs to be extremely high as well, as it is for destroying evidence. That is to say, courts should presume that the records that were destroyed were incriminating. Judges take destroying evidence of a crime quite seriously.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
> operates at all near the level of minimum performance required
We should be so lucky to see such a high standard.
> Anyone still think all this incompetence that always protects Bush and his team is some kind of accident?
I would rather. The alternative explanation is EVIL and probably treasonous.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I think it's more likely that G.W. doesn't use e-mail because he can't find the "sendification" button.
Treasonous? Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds? She's got your treason in detail. Do a Google or go here. And here's the Wikipedia entry.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Outlook has PST (Personal Store) and OST (Offline Store) files. PSTs are basically just local mail folder collections. OSTs are used to maintain local replicates of Exchange server mailboxes (so you can still use your email even if you're on the road). In Outlook 2003 "Cached Mode", Outlook also uses OSTs even when connected to the Exchange server, and synchronizes to the server in the background.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208480
PST and OST files -- I'll call them "Outlook stores" -- are both built around the same file format. There are two variants. The original format, which Microsoft sometimes called "ANSI", is limited to 2 Gi byte total size, and 64 Ki items per table. The table limit affects the number of items you can have in a folder, as well as the total number of folders you can have in a PST. (Outlook stores from Outlook 97 and earlier also had a table limit of 16 Ki items, but could be auto-upgraded in place to large tables in newer Outlook versions.)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/197430
These store limits affected OST and PST alike, so even if you had a nice, capable Exchange server, you could still encounter problems with Outlook store limits.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/288283
With Outlook 2003, Microsoft introduced a new Outlook store format. It's sometimes called the "Unicode" format. I'm aware of no documented limits on the file format. I'm sure there are some, but Microsoft doesn't document them. Microsoft didn't document the ANSI PST limits until long after they started causing data loss, either.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/830336
In versions of Outlook prior to 2002, if you exceeded the store format limits, Outlook would give no immediate indication. The file would keep getting bigger, as the software didn't have checks for the limits. But it would corrupting things, too. In short, silently loosing data.
Eventually, the Outlook store would get so damaged it would stop working. Microsoft provided a utility to truncate the file to 2 GiB to make it work again, loosing more data in the process.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296088
In Outlook 2002, Microsoft added some code to check the limits of the store, and warn/stop if you reach them.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305108
In Outlook 2003, along with the Unicode format, Microsoft added a parameter at which it would consider a Unicode store "full", even though the format can keep going. The stock limit is 20 GiB; you can increase it with a registry tweak.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925/
"ANSI PST" does not mean PST is a standard file format; that refers to the character sets/encodings the file uses.
Exchange Server uses an entirely different on-disk storage format, called EDB. There are technical limits, but they're insanely huge (16 TiB per store, 5 stores per database group). Exchange starts to run out of hardware resources (memory, mainly) long before you hit the file size limits. There are license-based size limits in some versions/editions of Exchange. 16 GiB in 2000 Standard, and 75 GiB in 2000 Standard SP2.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.