Slashdot Mirror


Are There Any Smart E-mail Retention Policies?

An anonymous reader writes "In an age of litigation and costly discovery obligations, many organizations are embracing policies which call for the forced purging of e-mail in an attempt to limit the organization's exposure to legal risk. I work for a large organization which is about to begin destroying all e-mail older than 180 days. Normally, I would just duck the house-cleaning by archiving my own e-mail to hard-drive or a network folder, but we are a Microsoft shop and the Exchange e-mail server is configured to deny all attempts to copy data to an off-line personal folder (.PST file). The organization's policy unhelpfully recommends that 'really important' e-mails be saved as Word documents. Is anybody doing this right? What do Slashdot readers suggest for a large company that needs to balance legal risks against the daily information and communication needs of its staff?"

367 comments

  1. Re:Look !! This is not NEWS !! by rfuilrez · · Score: 3, Funny

    Way to be a jerk. Slashdot isn't only about the latest iPhone release, or patent trolling. It's about everything technical, and this is good question.

  2. imap? by JeffSh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if your orgs exchange server has their imap connector enabled, you can use a different client that doesn't follow the commands of the exchange server to pull emails, but it sounds to me like your org is smarter than that.

    1. Re:imap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a similar policy, except the wording is such that we can keep documents with ongoing business use (or something like that). Everything else has a 90 day retention.

      It's not unreasonable in such a litigious society.

      IMAP lets me save what I need to save.

    2. Re:imap? by OAB_X · · Score: 1

      *most* email clients can interface with exchange servers through POP3/IMAP.

      My old place of employment used Exchange, and I saved every email in Thunderbird for years.

      If they have stopped all 3rd party POP3/IMAP access, don't allow you to export PST files, and Entourage on a Mac (w/Exchange support), all don't work, I can't think of anything you can do.

      Except, maybe just maybe finding the original PST file that outlook creates and you copy that to a flash-drive or something. If that file is not encrypted, you possibly have found your way to retain a copy of your companies emails.

      Knoppix *might* let you copy that file if your system privileges don't allow that file to be copied.

    3. Re:imap? by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      I just use VBA to sweep my emails and store them someplace else.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    4. Re:imap? by Skrapion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not unreasonable in such a litigious society.

      In a litigious society, wouldn't it be best to save all of your email, so you can use it to protect yourself in court?

      If you're deleting all your email, then the only evidence that will come out in court will be from the people suing you.

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    5. Re:imap? by Forge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where do you guys live?

      I'm building a hosted Email service and one of the things our clients demand is that we be able to keep all email (including the deleted ones) for 7 YEARS.

      They site regulatory compliance issues and corporate governance rules that were changed after the whole Enron, Worldcom series of fiascoes.

      So what your company and the original questioner's company are doing is illegal in some places. Jamaica only imitated America on this as far as I know but feel free to enlighten me.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    6. Re:imap? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah but maybe the company intends to do things that are worse than what people normally sue them for.

      So overall it would be a net gain for such companies.

      Alternatively:

      Maybe the company has such crappy lawyers that they allow the court to see emails out of context.

      Or maybe the courts and juries are so crap that they'd take some email rant like "I'm going to kill and bury X" more literally than the writer meant.

      Either way it's not a good sign.

      It's never a good sign if people don't want to keep the truth around, or can't handle the truth, or don't bother to determine the truth.

      --
    7. Re:imap? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      What about Sarbanes-Oxley? Maybe it doesn't apply?

      If it applies you may well use that as a weapon to let you auto-archive your mails.

      Not allowing you to save your mails in a PST file is (insert favorite expletive here) stupid...

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    8. Re:imap? by milkasing · · Score: 1

      In a litigious society, wouldn't it be best to save all of your email,

      Not really. Over the course of time, the social / political atmosphere changes. Emails that one person thinks are CYA on its own may prove incriminating in a bigger picture/ different context. For example, your company might have provided fireproofing, free of charge in the 60s to orphanages. An employee might think that it might be good to keep a record of it to prove that the money was not embezzeled. In the future an asbestos litigant might use this record as the key evidence in a multi-million dollar suit that banrupts the company. So how long is an email / record to be retained? Depends on what laws apply to it (the securities SOX laws, the health HIPAA laws all have specifications), how the emails are used, etc. And these retention periods are not necessarily fixed. For example an email could be retined for say 180 days (fixed), or as long as say, the subject of the email works for the company (event driven) or some combination of the two. Ultimately a bunch of lawyers, business users sit down and make a policy for all records for the company. (in the posters case it was 180 days for emails) Ultimately a bunch of lawyers, business users sit down and make a records management policy for all records for the company. They usually go by the US gov's guidelines (NARA) The 180 days the poster has for his for emails is the NARA guideline for emails (http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/presentations/raco06-baron.pdf) Of course as another comment pointed, out deleting emails after 180 days might get a company screwed. But usually adecent records management policy also allows/mandates putting a record 'hold' (or not allowing its destruction) in case of lawsuits, etc to take this into consideration.

    9. Re:imap? by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      it is a completely brain dead moronic puerile and insulting policy because it assumes that the company you work for is stealing things, deceiving people, cheating customers and rivals and generally is a good advertisement for just how bankrupt western society is. No wonder Muslims call us the great Satan.

      My email is my business application, it is my engineering notebook and product engineering database. I have to back up several Gb of data on my personal USB hard disk as the email server is limited to 100Mb.

      What is wrong with you people? why are you just rolling over and asking bad business practice to ram you up the Khyber? Deleting email because it might incriminate you in future is wrong.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    10. Re:imap? by Dross50 · · Score: 1

      The problem is they get the emails and other data from you when they do "discovery". Which entails you giving them all the relevant data to the suit. It sucks, you see all your emails that you and everybody else in your company wrote for the past X years printed out and hauled out on hand trucks for lawyers to read at $250/hr. Every half assed comment or off color joke gets reviewed. My former company has ~20 lawsuits at any given time (aviation), they tried a policy of categorizing everything, all emails all customer correspondence etc.... didn't work way too much work couldn't do it and do our regular jobs. By deleting emails after a certain period of time you have greater control over what is available for discovery. You want the approved documentation available for discovery,that which has been through engineering review and signoff. The time bombs are the emails that say, "geez I have concerns about the nut holding the wing on." To a suing lawyer this is an admission the wing nut is undersized whereas it may have been a comment by the engr that he didn't think he could buy the nut. It all about sowing doubt. The costs are huge.

    11. Re:imap? by TimothyDavis · · Score: 0

      Not always. Email is a very good mechanism to be used in court out of context - or at least in the worst possible light.

      Also, many business decisions are made for the sake of the business (ie doing something that really helps one partner by lowering your standards: Example http://www.msvistablog.com/article.asp?articleid=27472&MS-lowered-Vista-demands-to-help-Intel/). In this case Microsoft had good reason to maintain a strong relationship with Intel, at the expense of end users. This would then be ammunition for an end user lawsuit.

    12. Re:imap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a lawyer who has had to deal with e discovery in the real world, I have to say that saving everything is a double edged sword.

      Company A saves everything. A total of 1 billion emails by the time it comes to carrying out discovery. It then has to pay lawyers/paralegals to read everything at $$$/h to check there isn't a smoking gun in there.

      Company B deletes everything after 180 days. By the time it comes to carrying out discovery, there are only a couple of million emails. Still expensive, but only a fraction of the price. And the chances of there still being a smoking gun are much lower too...

      If a judge holds that the routine deletion of emails after 180 days is evidence of destroying evidence they will be appealed and overturned.

      Defending a large company, you would be much happier with a lack of evidence and a strong and enforced data retention / date deletion policy that sitting on millions and millions of potentially discoverable documents.

    13. Re:imap? by masteroffm · · Score: 1

      actually long term email retention can hurt you more than help you in some situations.

      our company is going through a restatement right now and if we had only had emails going back 6 months the auditors would have looked through those emails and been done. but since we had emails going back almost 8 years via backup tapes, they decided to go through all of them looking for pertinent emails. which then uncovered even more issues to be dealt with and of course these auditing firms charge by the hour. so not only has the restatement much longer than anticipated, but at a much greater cost to the company.

      so we are now looking at implementing a strict 90 day retention on email. but i know this will piss off a lot of users as some have emails in excess of 5 years in PST file. I actually welcome it because some genius in my company thought it would be a good idea to save PSTs to network shares for each individual user. which means I spend an inordinate amount of time remapping drives and reconnecting pst files in outlook.

    14. Re:imap? by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      They need to hire better lawyers.

      7 years only applies to certain data, and its almost certainly not email.

      (the opposite end of the spectrum is they are doing this to be safe, which is doubtful)

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
  3. Don't break the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't break the law (or if you do don't tell your closest 20 associates about it) and don't worry about retention policies?

    1. Re:Don't break the law... by Don+Sample · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't just about breaking the law. Someone sends an email to a coworker, telling them "I suppose that if someone is using our Webelfetzer 1000 while hopping up and down on one foot in the shower, they might slip, and bang their head," and then a year later someone is using a Webelfetzer 1000 while hopping up and down on one foot in the shower, and they slip and bang their head, and sue, and their lawyer finds the old email, and screams: "See! You knew this was a threat, and you didn't warn anybody!" and then doubles the damages they're asking for.

    2. Re:Don't break the law... by xaxa · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      1. Relocate your company to another country with better laws and without the "Sue! Sue! Sue!" culture.
      2. ...
      3. Probably less profit, the taxes are likely to be higher than the USA.

    3. Re:Don't break the law... by Vengie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know you don't care, but if someone high up wrote that email, it indicates that the use of the webelfetzer 1000 in the shower while hopping up and down on one foot was foreseeable. And that's the whole damned POINT. Otherwise, you sue the company and lose. Ok, i'm going to go back to studying for the bar, but you've got it ass backwards. [as an aside: treble damages, not double damages, and your factual scenario would not support them]

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    4. Re:Don't break the law... by E_Block · · Score: 1

      2 Days left... Quit reading slashdot and do more MBE questions.

    5. Re:Don't break the law... by MikeB0Lton · · Score: 1
      Alternative:

      1. Accept that regulations like Sarbanes Oxley, HIPAA, PCI, etc exist because too many businesses lost their moral compass, and the government had to step in to protect itself, consumers, and the economy.

      2. Comply with the above regulations because it is the ethical thing to do.

    6. Re:Don't break the law... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with that? If you did know/suspect your product could reasonably be expected to hurt someone, and you don't do anything about it, you SHOULD go to jail (or have a honking fine imposed on you, or whatever.)

      (Where the line gets drawn for definitions of "reasonable", how litigious your local society is, the sizeof() damages awarded and suchlike are merely implementation details.)

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    7. Re:Don't break the law... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      2. Comply with the above regulations because it is the ethical thing to do.

      Changing my password every 60 days instead of every 90 days is ethical???

    8. Re:Don't break the law... by Vengie · · Score: 1

      avging 75% on barbri studysmart qs. am more worried about ny essays and ny multiple choice. MPT will be a breeze. (and just picked up a PMBR book today) -- blue or red? (these are old pre-lawsuit pmbr)

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    9. Re:Don't break the law... by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least in that example, the problem is that it isn't the product that is harmful, the act of hopping on one foot in the shower is. If that original email were real it would probably have been a joke about how safe the product is, and not an admission of a dangerous design flaw.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:Don't break the law... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I know you don't care, but if someone high up wrote that email, it indicates that the use of the webelfetzer 1000 in the shower while hopping up and down on one foot was foreseeable.

      Unless they intended the example of using it in the shower while hopping on one foot as an absurdity to indicate that consumer injury won't happen.

      Legal reasoning like you present is why we have the incredibly stupid warnings on everything like "Kill'em Dead Rat Poison...CAUTION: harmful if swallowed".

    11. Re:Don't break the law... by MikeB0Lton · · Score: 1

      Changing my password every 60 days instead of every 90 days is ethical???

      Following the regulations because they are law is ethical business practice. I am not debating the studies for and against the IT security policies outlined in any of these agreements, including the debate over password complexity, length, and maximum age.

    12. Re:Don't break the law... by Vengie · · Score: 1

      I realize that you have never read a single treatise on Tort law and are just pulling things out of your ass; I am attempting to explain to you how strict products liability works. In your now-revised hypo, then no, they couldn't use the email as to liability. If the email said "gee, the only way someone could EVER get hurt was if they did this ridiculously absurd and IMPOSSIBLE thing" and the thing was indeed absurd, they wouldn't recover. But otherwise, the injury WAS foreseeable. Your hypo just changed. If you'd like, I can try to explain this to you offline, but considering I've actually gone to law school and you're already giving me the "legal reasoning like you present is blah blah blah." Just because you don't understand 500 years of common law doesn't mean it's wrong.

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    13. Re:Don't break the law... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      How about government butting out of how I log into my computer.? That would be ethical.

    14. Re:Don't break the law... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, you have little if any idea what I have or have not studied. Note that my "revised" hypo did not add or subtract any presented evidence whatsoever, it is simply a perfectly reasonable interpretation of exactly what you presented. That is, I changed only the conjecture. Given that hopping about in the shower is one of the things our parents warn us about as young children (right up there with talking to strangers and jumping down the stairs), I'd say my interpretation is the more justifiable one.

      If you found an email outlining that the use of the webelfetzer might lead an otherwise reasonable person to hop about in the shower, you might have something worthwhile.

      Otherwise, proper legal reasoning would be that the webelfetzer 1000 was only incidentally involved in the incident since hopping on one foot in the shower while encumbered with any random object (or even unencumbered) is a well known invitation to injury. Before you say that's for the court to work out, consider that litigation is never cheap and the courts really have better things to spend time and money on.

      The foreseeability of human stupidity should not make a legal claim, only the forseeability of a reasonable person's behaviour and expectations. After all, I can well imagine idiots doing all sorts of things no reasonable person would do and I'm cynical (read experienced) enough to feel certain that somewhere in the world some id10t has actually done most of them. I can think of way more such stupidities than would fit in a set of encyclopedias. Such "gems" might include cracking walnuts with the butt of a gun, trimming hedges with a lawnmower (that really happened!), cleaning earwax with an awl, attempting to shoot stuck lugnuts off (also happened), attempting to resolve knee pain by shooting it (again, real), etc.

      I am all too aware that that's not how law is practiced in the U.S. today.

      I do find it somewhat amusing that you would castigate a studied layman for presenting an opinion on common law given that it was derived from the administration of law by studied laymen. That is, in the history of law, the specialist educated specifically in the practice of law (professional lawyers) is a relatively recent invention.

      Given that you're likely a recent graduate of law school, you have a lot of theoretical knowledge fresh in your mind, but it's worth considering that anyone who has ever been involved in running a business probably has far more PRACTICAL knowledge of the law and it's effects than you do.

    15. Re:Don't break the law... by Vengie · · Score: 1

      You have confused strict product liability with negligence. If the suit sounds in strict product liability, then the email will screw the company. [The plaintiff still has to make a prima facia case for strict liability.] If the suit sounds in negligence, it won't make one bit of difference if the email existed or not. Negligence suits will depend on the reasonableness of the id10t's behavior. [Assuming you're in a contributory negligence jurisdiction rather than a comparative negligence one] Under Strict Products liability, all foreseeable behavior -- no matter how unreasonable -- must be dealt with. Nevermind that strict products liability will be nearly impossible to get unless the webelfetzer was defective in the first place. The point is, that email will screw the company if in fact the product was defective, i.e. company loses if the email says "I know that under these conditions our product will break because of a defect in our manufacturing process, but no one would ever be stupid enough to do that" -- and then someone IS stupid enough to do that.

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    16. Re:Don't break the law... by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the suit sounds in strict product liability, then the email will screw the company.

      Unless the product is a pogo stick that claims never to slip or some sort of helmet claiming to eliminate the possibility of injury or some similarly unlikely product, then even trying to show a case for strict liability is ethically unjustifiable. Again, I realize that's not how current practice works in the U.S.

      That is exactly the problem. While there are good cases for strict liability out there, there are far too many that are way "out there" but nevertheless cost many thousands to defend against and sometimes result in crazy damages being awarded.

      What I and the OP were getting at is that a policy of deleting old emails may be based on not giving some (too common) lawyers enough excuse to waste everyone's time and money trying to turn a moment of stupidity into winning the lottery rather than on ducking out of a legitimate liability.

      I am expanding upon that point with the idea that the patently silly warnings on common products is also a result of the abuse of strict liability.

      While I am sympathetic to the idea that strict liability places the social burden (more or less) on those better able to bear it, but it is subject to high levels of abuse and also has a tendency to place the burden on smaller companies that cannot bear it at all. It also tends to reward stupidity far too often. All of this is much more appropriately addressed by a social welfare system.

    17. Re:Don't break the law... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      In English common law we have this marvellous word "reasonable". If your legal system is fucked, that's tough, but you really think the answer to a system that can make anyone a criminal is to have everyone ACT like a criminal?? Only in America.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    18. Re:Don't break the law... by Vengie · · Score: 1

      Your first statement conflates false advertising and express warranty with strict liability. If a company says "our product does x" but it doesn't in fact, do X, they may be liable. (Example: Our product is microwave safe. You put it in the microwave. It blows up. Company is going to lose)

      Strict liability is when there is an actual defect in the product itself, i.e. a structural weakness or improper design. In those instances (when you've made a mistake in the construction/design of a product that a "reasonable manufacturer" should not have made) you are held liable so long as the use was foreseeable. Foreseeability includes accidents etc. So for things like a mower blade detaching when the mower is lifted to trim a hedge, the same blade would also detach if -- for example -- the user tripped while mowing the lawn and pulled the mower onto it's side. Generally, when you see people that have done stupid things getting compensated, it's because there is a similar non-stupid use of the product in which the same defect will cause an injury. [We do not wait for the non-stupid use to actually HAPPEN if the stupid use occurs first] Is this a better explanation?

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    19. Re:Don't break the law... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how that relates in any way to my comment.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    20. Re:Don't break the law... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The confusion there was probably just my engineer's perspective. If a product won't do what it's supposed to do, it is a design or manufacturing flaw. The distinction between that and marketing claiming something the designers never considered would be hard for a potential plaintiff to know until you get into discovery.

      I was presuming that the product would have been designed (perhaps badly) for the advertised capabilities.

      The initial confusion is still the unlikelihood that any sort of design flaw in any product might actually contribute to a slip and fall while hopping in the shower in any relevant way. I named the very few (difficult to imagine) possible ways.

      That is, the imagined id10t was hopping about in the shower while holding an object. The most reasonable conclusion would be that doing that while holding any object at all (or even no object) would have been the same slip, fall, and consequent injury. That's why we shouldn't hop around in the shower!

      The only way I can imagine the manufacturer being in any way ethically responsible would be if they somehow said or did something that would lead a reasonable person to believe their product would make hopping in the shower safe.

      If the product malfunctioned and delivered an electric shock (for example) to the plaintiff causing his fall and it should reasonably be expected to be safe to operate when wet and being jostled, it would be a different matter, but that requires several assumptions not presented in the original scenario.

      To get more concrete, if the device was a hermetically sealed led shake light, no number of humorous comments about crazy and stupid activities one might (but obviously shouldn't) partake in while holding the device (including jumping in the shower to shake it, using a high voltage transmission wire as a tightrope at night, convincing a lion to swallow it so he'll glow in the dark, etc) should ethically be construed as reasonably foreseeing the injury. Such jokes would abound if safety questions were asked of the engineers (since it's just a flashlight and being sealed, isn't even as "hazardous" as a regular flashlight). A prudent company might well want those joke emails to go away exactly to avoid having to go to court and have a very expensive version of our conversation in front of a judge. If they do so, I would consider the measure perfectly ethical and would find the need to do so a sad reality.

      Generally, when you see people that have done stupid things getting compensated, it's because there is a similar non-stupid use of the product in which the same defect will cause an injury. [We do not wait for the non-stupid use to actually HAPPEN if the stupid use occurs first] Is this a better explanation?

      Generally, yes. However, not always, and you don't have to be found liable to lose in court. Just going at all is expensive.

  4. Good Work by korbin_dallas · · Score: 1

    Don't do anything illegal, then the company doesn't have any thing to hide right?

    I recall several big cases then went up because of someones 'little black book' in pencil and paper, so purging emails is really a waste of time anyway. Besides we could always plant emails we need on your server anyway.

    --
    They Live, We Sleep
    1. Re:Good Work by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Destroying emails can also be dangerous as you only destroy half of the email for a start (the sender/receiver at the other end has the other half), having a specific policy of destroying emails makes you look guilty straight of the bat and of course in the event of dispute against the other companies record of emails you have no defence (even if they been well faked).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  5. Stuff that matters by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if Ask Slashdot articles like this aren't "news for nerds", they're still (supposed to be) "stuff that matters" related to information technology.

    1. Re:Stuff that matters by bschorr · · Score: 1

      If you don't think this matters wait until you have to spend a week with a lawyer standing over your shoulder reviewing every message in your archive.

      --
      -B-
    2. Re:Stuff that matters by base3 · · Score: 1

      The first rule of unauthorized archives is "don't talk about unauthorized archives."

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    3. Re:Stuff that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second rule of unauthorized archives is "don't talk about unauthorized archives."

      The third rule is if this is your first time at unauthorized archives, you have to unauthorize some archives.

    4. Re:Stuff that matters by bschorr · · Score: 1
      Just because you erase 18 minutes of the tapes doesn't mean you still get to be President.

      Anybody who has done any computer forensics work knows that it's not that hard to detect when there is more (or less) than there should be. And in many cases the penalty for keeping those kinds of secrets may be worse than just having the messages to begin with.

      My original point is simply that this is a subject that DOES merit some thought and discussion in your organization so that you can try to have an intelligent plan for document (and message) retention.

      --
      -B-
  6. Online Email service by CalSolt · · Score: 1

    Could you forward your emails to a personal account on one of the big three webmail providers? IANAL but it seems like that might limit the company's liability while allowing you to automatically archive your emails in a fully searchable format.

    1. Re:Online Email service by Gay+for+Linux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Worked really well for Media Defender.

    2. Re:Online Email service by westlake · · Score: 1
      Could you forward your emails to a personal account on one of the big three webmail providers? IANAL but it seems like that might limit the company's liability while allowing you to automatically archive your emails in a fully searchable format.
      .

      because your boss loves to start the morning with the sound of a time bomb ticking in the background.

      sensitive correspondence stored beyond his reach.

  7. Re:Look !! This is not NEWS !! by negRo_slim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Way to be a jerk. Slashdot isn't only about the latest iPhone release, or patent trolling. It's about everything technical, and this is good question.

    I'm a big fan of plain text email and copy and past really isn't all that time consuming if I were forced to save anything worth saving for longer than 180 days.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  8. adaptation by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The end result of all the bullshit lawyers try to shove on people who actually produce things for a living is the same. We route around it. This policy will cause people to use webmail, alternative email clients, IM, and other technologies to get on with getting work done, while the lawyers remain blissfully ignorant.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:adaptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause people to use webmail, alternative email clients, IM, and other technologies to get on with getting work done

      The company I work for block those websites and protocols for this very reason.
      I guess this why we don't get any work done.

    2. Re:adaptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The desired end result is that you would adapt by not doing things that are wrong, illegal and/or immoral. However, since your character flaws are so ingrained, the world will need more lawyers to prosecute and represent your offspring, if you are in fact lucky enough to find a women who is not turned off by your lack of morals.

    3. Re:adaptation by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Keeping email records for 181 days is neither wrong, illegal, nor immoral.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  9. Printers are your friends by xlr8ed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Print every email you get, I'm sure it won't effect your bonus.

    1. Re:Printers are your friends by caluml · · Score: 2, Informative

      If something affects you, it has an effect on you. But you can also affect a funny accent, and you can have personal effects. Hope that's cleared things up for you.

    2. Re:Printers are your friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't forget that you can effect a change in your affect!

    3. Re:Printers are your friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://xkcd.com/326/

      and

      verb [ trans. ] (often be effected)

      cause (something) to happen; bring about : nature always effected a cure | budget cuts that were quietly effected over four years.

    4. Re:Printers are your friends by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this isn't a bad idea. Remember what Phil Zimmerman did with PGP when there were restrictions on cryptographic software?

    5. Re:Printers are your friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it effected his bonus, that would be a strange affect.

    6. Re:Printers are your friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And make sure to do it on a color printer, so that all the links in the email are blue.

  10. Cheating is a bad idea by SoapBox17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cheating, as the author suggests, is a bad idea. The company is doing this for a reason... to protect themselves from extra BS when they get sued.

    If you don't want to have to go through that extra BS (believe me, you don't) and/or you don't want your company or yourself getting in even more legal trouble when they deny something exists (because it shouldn't according to their policy) when it really does (because you didn't follow the policy) then don't be an ass. Do what they tell you like a good little minion.

    1. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Boricle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here is the thing I don't understand...

      This is a double edged sword.

      It is nice that you won't have incriminating emails around so that people can find them during discovery.

      but what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?

      I guess you just have to say... "oh well, sorry, we don't have a copy of the [warning/caution/acceptance] that puts us in the clear..., I guess we're screwed".

    2. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by caluml · · Score: 1

      what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?

      It doesn't matter, because you're innocent until proven guilty, right. Right?

    3. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by radarjd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?

      I guess you just have to say... "oh well, sorry, we don't have a copy of the [warning/caution/acceptance] that puts us in the clear..., I guess we're screwed".

      It's a fair question, and one I've certainly struggled with. Ultimately, you have to come up with a balancing of the possibilities. On one hand is the possibility that an email over 180 days exonerates you and on the other is an email over 180 days old that sends your executives to prison. The calculation may be that it's harder for someone to prove you guilty, than to be forced to prove yourself innocent. Apparently the balance for this company is at 180 days. That's a bit short for my taste, but that's what this company has decided.

    4. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Vengie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why some investment banks save everything. They create a rebuttable presumption that if they don't have it, it doesn't exist. (Often helpful when the other side alleges there is a "smoking gun")

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    5. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Bazar · · Score: 1

      That's the criminal courts your thinking about.

      The civil courts are more then happy to award judgment on evidence that is less then concrete. As such loosing a letter that exonerates you could cost your company quite badly in the pockets.

      --
      To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
    6. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is unclear, but it sounds like the company is referring to inter-office communications and those should be written with the same standard as any external correspondence - only facts, no editorializing and no emotion. Judge's who spend a lifetime listening to liars, have a sense that someone is hiding something including correspondence. The pieces of the puzzle are mostly their or somebody is hiding something.

      The reality is you never ever want to sue somebody, be sued by somebody, but if either takes place, you want your nose clean and your facts straight - if for no other reason than credibility.

      If you don't read your Visa contracts or mortgage documents word for word, how likely is it you are going to spend hours pouring over a job contract and consulting a lawyer about those portions you don't understand?

    7. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's obvious he works for a company who assumes that they will in fact be in the wrong in any given situation.

    8. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. The "other side" can only rationally* claim there is a smoking gun if there is a witness that says it exists. If the email is deleted, then the witness is given credibility.

      (*admittedly, judges have been convinced by the irrational before...)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    9. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh... sending your executives to prison... I can think of a few who'd be improved by a five stretch. Especially if they were locked up with a big stack of books about security.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    10. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by thsths · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > but what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?

      Well, obviously this company has decided that old emails are much more likely to work against them, and this even overrides the loss of productivity due to important emails going missing etc. I really wonder what kind of business this company is in, and what their business strategy is :-(

      Or maybe it is just one CEO that knows something funny went on, and now he/she is trying to destroy the evidence whatever the cost.

    11. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's been my experience. Innocent until proven guilty is only applicable to the criminal court system.

      To go a step further, a family member of mine is a judge. He directs people to send all e-mail to his private account, as technically the state has the right to read, modify and delete his work e-mail. He has seen enough corruption in government (he has also been a mayor and a state legislator) to know that essentially allows the more senior judges control over his career. At the most innocent, by cherry picking phrases from his e-mail they can amplify potential mistakes he may have made. At the most heinous, they can fabricate something which would be part of his official correspondence and implicate him in something illegal. If there is something which must be sent through official channels, he requires only a paper copy... which is the way law worked for centuries anyway.

      It is paranoid, but you should think of work e-mail as a tool which can be used against you when the shit hits the fan.

    12. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by mpe · · Score: 2

      but what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?

      Or simply that the emails in question contain information you need more than 180 days later...

    13. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by mpe · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously this company has decided that old emails are much more likely to work against them, and this even overrides the loss of productivity due to important emails going missing etc.

      Wonder if they also destroy any pieces of paper over 180 days old or if this policy only applies to email...

    14. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Apparently the balance for this company is at 180 days. That's a bit short for my taste, but that's what this company has decided.

      A bit short?? Man, I'd hate to have a one-year contract with this company.

      "I'm sorry, sir, but there's no record of your milestones for this year...."

    15. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by dogugotw · · Score: 1

      If 'twere my world, 'important stuff' would be logged via legally binding documentation - registered mail with a wet sig, contracts, or, if you insist on email, use a system that lets you segregate the stuff that's meaningful from all of the other crap that moves through the system. There are 3rd party systems that are smart enough to allow this kind of integration of mail into a legal framework.

    16. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious answer is that they don't plan to have any exonerating evidence, since they play dirty and know they will be guilty as sin. Whatever lawsuit comes their way.

    17. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is nice that you won't have incriminating emails around so that people can find them during discovery.

      This seems to imply that management that puts these policies in place should be carefully reviewed by their company's owners. They do not seem to have the best of the company in mind, if they feel the need to protect against having "incriminating emails" discovered. A really good CEO would make sure the incriminating emails were found quicker, not work towards hiding the evidence.

    18. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by pla · · Score: 1

      Cheating, as the author suggests, is a bad idea. The company is doing this for a reason... to protect themselves from extra BS when they get sued.

      Right - The company does it to protect the company. Not the individual employees.

      So when they get sued more than 180 days after product launch for a fatal flaw (as in, it kills people) in Widget2008, the lead engineer can't prove that he warned management about the problem and they chose to ignore it.



      I'll second the "alternative MUA" approach. Have they configured POP, or IMAP, or even OWA? Connect and bulk-download.
      Or, even given no other options - how about simply forwarding everything to yourself at an external account?

    19. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      It's a fair question, and one I've certainly struggled with. Ultimately, you have to come up with a balancing of the possibilities. On one hand is the possibility that an email over 180 days exonerates you and on the other is an email over 180 days old that sends your executives to prison.

      And what about when the executives deny responsibility for various dubious practices and blame some junior staffer who was just following their (now deleted) orders?

      Unless the staffer was paranoid enough to risk breaking rules to make his own backup (which might be hard to verify, anyway), he's the one (unjustly) screwed.

      Anyway, I made sure to archive all my email and keep a copy at home. And it did come in useful when I quit and sued the company later, and I was able to produce copies of messages verifying my claims and refuting the company's (fortunately the judge didn't obsess about the provenance of my copies, and the company was too clueless to question them).

    20. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like George W. Bush should take a clue from these Wall Street investment banks.

    21. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going anonymous here for relatively obvious reasons, as I work for one of those companies with a 180-day email retention policy.

      "I really wonder what kind of business this company is in, and what their business strategy is :-("

      Here's one. VC. Growing their piggybank rather than losing its contents. Being sued could cause us to have no more $$ to invest, and kill not only us but quite possibly also some of the companies we fund. I recently cited the policy, too, in a discussion with some lawyers for a company that is a competitor of one that we fund, and it was accepted without question. Companies have that policy because it works, and it comes into play more often than cubicle drones like us might know.

      I believe that a friend at one of the big West Coast companies (Is it Cisco? Oracle?) told me that they have a similar policy in place to limit financial exposure.

    22. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Vengie · · Score: 1

      You missed the point of my post entirely. The presumption is used to DEFEAT a credible witness. Example: Employment disputes. Ex-employee Y says that certain things were done via email. Employer (who has an infinite retention policy) can create a rebuttable presumption that the email does not exist by merely signing an affidavit that they searched for the email (using plaintiff-supplied keywords) and it did not show up. The only way the plaintiff (ex-employee) can now win is by producing the email itself. (which of course, s/he cant)

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    23. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      My apologies.

      Of course, the plaintiff can always accuse the defendant of perjury and evidence tampering (hard to prove, but sometimes it can be done).

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    24. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by radarjd · · Score: 1

      This seems to imply that management that puts these policies in place should be carefully reviewed by their company's owners. They do not seem to have the best of the company in mind

      The officers (and attorneys) of the company have a duty to the shareholders to ensure that their policies do benefit and protect the owners (likely shareholders, but maybe it's an LLC or some other type of organization). If the officers don't, the shareholders absolutely should remove them. It should be clear for reasons besides just the email policy if the officers don't have the shareholders' best interests in mind.

      A really good CEO would make sure the incriminating emails were found quicker, not work towards hiding the evidence.

      While I agree with you, you seem to be thinking only of the case where the officers are embezzling or otherwise harming the shareholders. In many cases of officer misconduct, the shareholders are beneficiaries of illicit activity. For example, the shareholders of Enron who sold before the fall made out extremely well from the illegal actions of the officers. Obviously other shareholders lost everything, but had Enron never been caught, all shareholders would have benefited.

    25. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      The company is doing this for a reason.

      My company does the same, 180 day auto email purge. It is NOT for the companys benefit, or even the companys policy
      (in my case.) It was for IT's benefit, and their policy. Company policy set 180 days as the longest IT communications emails could be retained. Engineering, Accounting etc are all required by sarbanes oxley to keep much more email, much longer. IT set the policy those must be maintained on your Personal computer, couldn't be any server drive for archives. My company will likely be in lots of trouble thanks to IT's policy, but no one has fought it. This person, if also under S.O. is very likely violating company, and federal regs, if they doesn't find a way to archive, without violating IT policys.

    26. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Antimute · · Score: 1

      I'm a developer at an investment bank, and retaining emails is of top importance for the sales and trading desk, to ensure trade agreements are clear. In fact, the validity and retention of email is so important that the head of our exotics desk left to head a company which intends to provide irrefutable hash-key based timestamping: www.guardtime.com

    27. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My observation with companies is that if they decide to go after you, they will. Your defense is worth nothing. They have a hatred that only your demise will satisfy.

    28. Re:Cheating is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any particular reason why you personally should care if your executives are put in jail because they did something wrong and were caught out by an email trail that went through you?

      Personally, I'd get some satisfaction from that outcome. I'd also hope that if I knew something illegal were going on then I wouldn't pretend that I didn't - whistleblower anyone?

      I'd still be looking for a new job, but at least I'd know I'd done the 'right' thing.

  11. Localhost by shaunnrose · · Score: 1

    Seems like a highly annoying and unproductive policy you have there. Create a local pop3/smtp server, forward your emails there. Or.... forward them back to yourself and keep resetting the timestamp :)

  12. What are they trying to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not trying to troll here (but posting AC just to be on the safe side), but really: What are they trying to hide with such a policy? If they're doing something illegal you should report them, not try to cover for them.

    1. Re:What are they trying to hide? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      They're not necessarily doing anything criminal; they might just be trying to protect themselves from discovery obligations in a civil suit. You don't have to be doing something wrong to get sued. Why make your opponent's job easier by keeping information which might help their case?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:What are they trying to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about criminal?

    3. Re:What are they trying to hide? by whit3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Information that might help an opponent'
      and
      'Information that might help a coworker, ally, employer'
      are both likely to be present in those e-mails.
      Only the first of these excites fear, uncertainty, doubt and
      only the first is being carefully considered by the policymakers
      in this case. They're deluded. Don't buy stock, and keep
      your resume updated.

    4. Re:What are they trying to hide? by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      Is it also safe to assume that, if a company introduces policies relating to harassment, there must be endemic harassment in the company?

      Just because a company is afraid of lawsuits doesn't mean they're guilty.

    5. Re:What are they trying to hide? by base3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, given the reactive nature of typical organizations, I'd say that's a safe bet.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    6. Re:What are they trying to hide? by shaunnrose · · Score: 1

      Email retention and documentation retention are different with some similarities. The document retention policy is the be all, end all of SOX compliance policies (I am sure, not certain) In this particular case, I assume that their email retention policy is to protect mail server storage capacity, with the individual's obligation to save important emails as a word doc to comply with the uber records/document retention policy.

  13. Mod parent up as funny by mark99 · · Score: 1

    And I do hope you are joking.

    1. Re:Mod parent up as funny by jbengt · · Score: 1

      He might have been joking, but when we first got e-mail, and especially when the server started to fill up, our company actually had a policy that we should print out all e-mails and delete them as soon as we got them.
      Currently we have a loosely enforced policy of moving all e-mails to job folders set up on another server, so the e-mail server won't clog up.

    2. Re:Mod parent up as funny by uniquegeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      My company gets a lot of material for jobs via email. The email gets printed out and attached to a carbonless job form. The details from the email are written on the job form (plus extra details we need to do the job). When the job is done, this paper monstrosity is sent to billing, including the email. On top of this we want to search the details of the job, so we scan the docket into the computer after the job is done. We scan the email as well. So what started out as 8KB of text ends up as 300KB-800KB of images, with a lot of extra work in between. Never underestimate to power of business to create work.

    3. Re:Mod parent up as funny by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Erm how much is a 500gig hard drive these days?
      How the hell can a mail server 'clog up' with plain text?

    4. Re:Mod parent up as funny by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      A large proportion of buisness e-mail isn't plain text though, it's plain text or html, with huge Office documents attached to them, and the forwarded around a few times.

      After that you then have the same e-mail, and 15 copies of the same document floating around. For really large companies 500 gig will only scratch the surface.

  14. Let it be deleted by jolyonr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously.

    Let the 180 day limit on email remain as 'someone elses problem'. How many times do you really need to get an email six months old? You'll end up with a cleaner, faster and less stressful mailbox.
     
    Of course, there may be the odd email you need, so every week why not look at the oldest week's worth of mail in your mailbox, and anything you REALLY have to keep, just forward it to yourself. Then it will stay in your mailbox for another 180 days. But try to only forward the things that are vital.
     
    Of course you may be able to forward to an offsite mail account, but I'm assuming that isn't allowed. No company is going to restrict you from forwarding emails to your own company account.
     
    Jolyon

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    1. Re:Let it be deleted by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I often find I need e-mails that are 10-15 years old. I haven't retained everything over that time, but what I've retained is both interesting and useful. Frivolous emails are certainly deletable. But the non-frivolous stuff? That leaves a lot of stuff whose value does not deprecate with time. In the end, knowledge is its own currency, and those who choose to throw that currency away simply make themselves poorer.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Let it be deleted by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 1

      Email, you're doing it wrong.

      Email is not a store for information - it's a means of communication. I admit that I also archive email (well since Gmail opened anyway) but if someone emails me a phone number - it goes in the address book, if I get emailed a solution to a problem, it goes in a wiki. Email has not been easily tagged/searchable till recently - most clients are still terrible!

      I do not understand this mentality of people who use email as a 'to do list' or 'archive of information'. It excels at neither of these.

      --
      I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
    3. Re:Let it be deleted by Shados · · Score: 1

      Step 1: get OneNote (part of Office 2007... in office 2003 it was a stand alone product and it sucked anyway)

      Step 2: Print to OneNote (think of it as a PDF printer that lets you organize stuff).

      Problem Solved.

    4. Re:Let it be deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going the AC route just to be safe. As a supervisor in a matrix organization I can not begin to tell you the number of times I've needed emails that are years old. While I don't need old email every day, when I do it is a critical need for my team. Of course technically I can't delete anything right now due to a lawsuit between one of my customers and a competitor, but if you look up the word shortsighted you will see a picture of Sam Palmisano next to it.

      I think the oldest useful email has turned out to be about 5 years old, but 1-2 years is several times a month.

    5. Re:Let it be deleted by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I save emails for the same reasons I would save regular mail. If I think it's something that I will need later to CMA then I'm saving it. I should imagine that saving the whole email and not just the text will lend credibility to my side if someone tries to say they never sent/received "that" email.

      Since I don't what will come back up 5 years from now I tend to save all of it.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    6. Re:Let it be deleted by barzok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many times do you really need to get an email six months old?

      It's saved my ass more than once. There are few things more satisfying than having a project manager start an email tirade against you because she thinks you didn't tell her about a change that needed to be made later in the year, and being able to forward that old email to her and tell her "yes, I did tell you about it, I even sent you the documentation for it way back when."

    7. Re:Let it be deleted by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Speaking of five years from now, I settled on a debt about 4 years ago that I was a cosigner on and got stuck with. I negotiated the settlement over email and while there were hard copies mailed, I had the emails where the account manager said everything was received, cleared, and everything was completely settled. About 8 months ago, the same debt came back up and while I couldn't find the snail mail letters, I did have the emails and presented them for the record. They were a little hesitant but ended up clearing the debt on more time. I asked for another hard copy of their release and have failed to receive one. But I have 6 months of email on top of the original where we hammered this out and they declared the debt settled once again. I will keep that for another 15 years because that is when the statute of limitations runs out. But I was able to get the credit reporting companies to promptly remove the mark from my record and I suspect I will have to do it again.

      Sure, it was 3 years and not 5 but who is to say it won't start back up in 4 more years.

    8. Re:Let it be deleted by cbart387 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I haven't had to deal with that yet but I use email as documenting for letting people know things, like smaller products that aren't tracking through the normal paper. It's a great CYA.

      --
      Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
    9. Re:Let it be deleted by Dun+Kick+The+Noob · · Score: 1

      I agree with barzok, Email retention is necessary because it gets you out of a pissing match when memories fade, no documentation is kept and items come up for contention. It also comes up good when you say i say the troll says. Email retention policy is now forever, just change the PST every quarter to prevent a corruption and slow opening of email.

    10. Re:Let it be deleted by jbengt · · Score: 1

      How many times do you really need to get an email six months old?

      I regularly work on projects that last more than a year, and often work on projects that last as long as seven or more years. The longer ones often start and stop or even go on hold for months at a time (or longer). Having the old emails that I can read through often helps me manage the job. Also, if issues come up, being able to definitively say, e.g., "I sent you such-and-such on this date" can settle things quickly, and even allows me to resend if the other party has deleted it.

      Of course, I don't just keep everything in the inbox, I save to particular job folders.

    11. Re:Let it be deleted by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I do not understand this mentality of people who use email as a 'to do list' or 'archive of information'. It excels at neither of these.

      It's because we're lazy.

      It's just easyer to leave it where it is than to move it elsewhere. Ill admit I have used email as a notepad while on the phone and emailed it to myself on numerous occasions.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    12. Re:Let it be deleted by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      How many times do you really need to get an email six months old?

      Approximately twice a month. Any project manager would probably have the same experience. Email is my primary repository for project information, and for a fair amount of system configuration information. I store passwords, addresses, system configurations there. Why? Because it's password protected by a password that I know is solid, is accessible from anywhere I need it, (via Outlook Web, yeah, I know, shudder, go fuck yourself), and I know that the email system is solidly backed up. I keep reference copies of important documents, which are then time stamped and stored.

      My company has a policy of journaling all mail for all time. At the same time, they have a policy, thus far unenforced at my division, of constraining email folder size to 50 MB. I support the first policy, while the second is old generation silly. We're one of those IT companies that is still figuring out that not all computers run MVS.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    13. Re:Let it be deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at IBM when the Reagan administration dropped the anti-trust lawsuit. I know that
      whole real warehouses and thousands of virtual
      warehouses full of documents, email and data were
      erased that night.

      I have always made it my own personal policy to
      keep every single email and line of code I've
      ever written.

    14. Re:Let it be deleted by flug · · Score: 1
      How many times do you really need to get an email six months old?

      I have essentially all my in & outgoing email archived and easily searchable, dating back to 1994.

      It is one of the most useful resources I have on my computer.

      That is all.

    15. Re:Let it be deleted by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      You are very right.

      My employer (who I'm not going to name, there are lots of products and services in this market) sells an email archiving service for places where it's a legal requirement - eg everywhere SarbOx and/or HIPAA apply, and that's just the US market), or where the risk of legal action that can't be easily defended is judged too great to just accept. I personally pull corporate mail onto my Linux laptop with IMAP (yes, I KNOW how lucky I am to work somewhere not completely tied up with red rape and obstructive policies and/or admins...) and I then dump that to a local backup device at home. (Yes it's encrypted, and yes doing so is probably a breach of some corporate policy or other, but the day my employer gets the right to audit my bedroom is the day I quit.)

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    16. Re:Let it be deleted by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      I haven't retained everything over that time, but what I've retained is both interesting and useful. Frivolous emails are certainly deletable.

      The whole idea is formalizing the process of determining what information is frivolous and what is important. When you decide that something is important -- and you have six months to make that decision -- you should commit it to some official company record. That way, you can go to court and say with a straight face that anything not committed to the official company record obviously wasn't important.

    17. Re:Let it be deleted by jd · · Score: 1

      Any court, indeed anyone who has ever worked in business, knows that nothing in the corporate record is important and that most official records are useless for any purpose beyond keeping the paper and CD manufacturing businesses happy.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:Let it be deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ==> I often find I need e-mails that are 10-15 years old

      yep, maybe not that old, but I use my eMail folder as reference material every day.

      Our company policy allows us to set our eMail retention up to a maximum of 1 year. It goes on to recommend that all eMails which may need longer retention should be moved to the "Archive" ( we use Groupwise ). I don't do that; instead I just save such messages into the relevant /CORRESPONDENCE or /DOCUMENT folder

      this isn't fail-safe, and I have ended up hunting for document I couldn't find (haven't we all?) Perhaps I should look into Google Desk-top. I use xplorer2 -- and this is pretty helpful, generally

    19. Re:Let it be deleted by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I do not understand this mentality of people who use email as a 'to do list' or 'archive of information'. It excels at neither of these.

      It excels as a list of messages documenting a relationship. Contract negotiations, pricing, etc, etc. Business relationships can span decades. There is constant turnover of people. You need an authoritative file of who said what to who. It used to be a paper file, now if you're doing most of your business by email that's what you need to keep. And the original email mailboxes are a lot easier to search than whatever documents, wikis, whatever different people may have stored copies in.

    20. Re:Let it be deleted by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      How many times do you really need to get an email six months old?
      About twice a week. It would be more often if Outlook's search didn't suck so bad. GroupWise is still nowhere near as good at searching email as GMail, but it's a lot better than Outlook and I used to routinely search about five years worth of email in GroupWise.

      This wasn't for CYA purposes, just to look up what I did on earlier projects that needed attention again.

    21. Re:Let it be deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the 180 day limit on email remain as 'someone elses problem'. How many times do you really need to get an email six months old? You'll end up with a cleaner, faster and less stressful mailbox.

      Not often, but when I do need to, I need to badly.

      My work inbox is organized into quarters:
          2007 - Q2 - sent/received
          2007 - Q3 - sent/received
          2007 - Q4 - sent/received
          2008 - Q1 - sent/received
          2008 - Q2 - sent/received

      If I want to find an e-mail from someone else I use the 'search' box in the received folders; if it's for something I wrote, the sent folders. We have 150 MB limit on the server, and that's usually enough to keep about nine months of e-mail.

      For large attachments, I put them into a local PST that organized simply by year.

      For home, I break things up by year only and use search (Mail.app).

      This keeps things manageable to reasonable sizes, and it's easier to find things since I don't have to figure out which folder I filed things in.

    22. Re:Let it be deleted by ribit · · Score: 1

      We keep a lot of old email for customer support purposes.. It really helps if you can search and quickly see the history of previous dealings with a customer going back 8 years (for example quickly seeing the previous communications with a guy who has login problems every time he signs up to our site, which he does every few years, each time not following the instructions properly).... (we don't have time/money so far to implement a proper customer support ticket system).

    23. Re:Let it be deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's saved my ass more than once. There are few things more satisfying than having a project manager start an email tirade against you because she thinks you didn't tell her about a change that needed to be made later in the year, and being able to forward that old email to her and tell her "yes, I did tell you about it, I even sent you the documentation for it way back when."

      I second this. It's why I have a TrueCrypt partition on a USB drive containing every email I've ever received or sent. (3 gigs worth in about 18 months.) So far it's saved my job at least twice when someone tried to blame one of their major screw ups on me.

      And, with everyone else I work for happily going along with our stupid mail size quotas and email retention policy, it gives me a nice (if horribly unethical) means to exonerate myself with old emails that everyone else has deleted, without losing control over months old emails that may come back and bite me if put into the wrong hands.

      Your mileage my vary depending on how contemptible and scummy the managers you work for are.

    24. Re:Let it be deleted by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      You forgot step 3:

      Step 3: Profit!

      Seriously, until someone comes up w/ a foolproof way to search hundreds or thousands of pdf files (at a time) for a particular phrase, all you've done is move the whole "print it out and save it that way" thing to a digital storage medium.. All of the inherent issues with the latter approach are still there.

      I work for "The Big Evil Bank of Doom", and we have a 90 day email retention policy.. Thing is, anyone that has any need at all for "institutional memory" is just saving everything off (against policy) to a pst file.. I can't even tell you how many times someone has come back 18 months later and asked me things like "Who asked you to set x up?" or "When did person y do thing z?". Without some sort of email chain, these questions are very difficult to answer..

      Moving the request or whatever to some other file does nothing to help the company avoid litigation, since any attorney worth a damn will not limit their discovery request to just emails, but to something like "produce any communication or record thereof related to the instant issue".

    25. Re:Let it be deleted by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      He's not doing it your way, but he's not doing it wrong.

      Saving e-mail is like saving any correspondence, but easier. You saved off that phone number in an address book. That's great if what you need from your past correspondence is that phone number. You can't anticipate what data you're going to need out of your past correspondence, and you can't enumerate all of the data contained in your correspondence. The only logical solution is archival.

      Quick. Tell me who sent you that person's phone number. When? Why did they deem it appropriate to reveal somebody's personal information. When's the last time you heard from that old friend? How many people have contacted you about that piece of code you posted on the internet in 1998? Who is this guy who just contacted you, and have you really ever done business with him in the past? How much did you pay for that thing when you bought it 10 years ago?

      You can't even think of all the possible nuggets of information contained in an e-mail archive until you suddenly care about the data. So you're never going to be able to file it away in another form in advance.

      Also, yes. Most clients are still terrible. But the good clients have been around for *much* longer than most of the bad ones. And that's not even counting "grep".

      I've remembered things I'd certainly have forgotten, learned new things about people from old correspondence, answered questions I didn't know I had the answer to, won lawsuits, and saved myself incalculable amounts of time, simply because I have an archive of past e-mails.

  15. You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by unassimilatible · · Score: 5, Informative

    Destroying e-mail - something that used to be a good idea - can now be a crime even absent an active criminal investigation. For firms affected by Sarbanes-Oxley, you'd better comply with e-mail retention rules.

    And for those of you libertarian-for-yourself, statist-for-big-companies types out there, this is what happens when the government pokes its nose into regulating business; they don't just make Microsoft's life miserable. All aspects of life and business will be intruded upon. That's just how Big Nanny works.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Never mind SOX. We ran into this at a company I used to work for. Afer getting hit a few times they decided to implement a 30 day clean out. Important messages were to be printed out. (Oh yeah, they were so cheap that most departments were stealing paper from other departments)

      Then someone mentioned that email was used to track changes to military contracts and when dealing with government stuff, had to be retained as well as backed up.

      The lawyers were literally sending out memos on this hourly with one group saying "Run the deletions now!" and the other telling us to save everything. Of course both groups were threatening the admins with their jobs if they didn't comply.

      Most people got so fed up they just ignored everyone and did what their local user base required.

      This company mangaged by threat and it reached a point where one Sysadmin on a conference call exploded, described the parental heritage of the managers in great detail, announced that he was f***ing sick of them all and slammed the phone down. He packed his stuff, tossed his cell and pager on his desk and walked out.

      There were other, less public incidents.

    2. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Destroying e-mail - something that used to be a good idea - can now be a crime even absent an active criminal investigation.

      Unless the email is destroyed on an ongoing basis as part of a clear and documented policy, which makes it perfectly legal.

      Sounds exactly like this "ask slashdot" question.

    3. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

      As I understand it, you have to have a policy that is compliant with the law, and be able to show that you've consistently followed that policy.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just say you misplaced the emails. It worked for the Whitehouse and President Bush.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    5. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by Fireshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bring in a lawyer and ask about Sarbanes Oxley, the changes to federal e discovery requirements and your industry specific requirements. Computerworld had a good article about the changes to federal e-discovery here: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9001219 For an example, the FAA has the opinion that copies of all written communications to them should be maintained in the format it was sent. So, a fax would be held on to and an email to them would not be deleted.

      "The organization's policy unhelpfully recommends that 'really important' e-mails be saved as Word documents." By that logic, any disgruntled ex-employee can create a Word document with outlandish claims. Then claim it's a copy of an email. Your organization's written policy just opened that avenue of legal attack.

      You said large company. Why not capture and archive all e-mail messages -- incoming, outgoing and internal? This approach provides the strongest assurance that all relevant e-mail messages are being captured. It will help increase the confidence of internal and external auditors and regulatory authorities in the integrity of the resulting audit trail. If not, then you do run the risk of a judge impsing a fine because you could not produce evidence.

      --
      "It's one thing to talk about the poetry of machines. Quite another to listen to it for yourself."
    6. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      this is what happens when the government pokes its nose into regulating business

      ...they are held accountable if they break the law? That's a win, right?

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    7. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by Atario · · Score: 0

      Destroying e-mail - something that used to be a good idea - can now be a crime even absent an active criminal investigation.
      [snip]
      this is what happens when the government pokes its nose into regulating business; they don't just make Microsoft's life miserable. All aspects of life and business will be intruded upon. That's just how Big Nanny works.

      Well, gosh and golly gee willikers, we wouldn't want the poor, poor corporations intruded upon! To keep them from hiding their own misdeeds -- a perfectly legitimate activity, mind you -- these Big Sister Nanny State Fascists would actually impose rules by which business must be conducted! Why, the arrogance! How dare they sully the pure Rule Of The Jungle with their silly "rule of law"? And furthermore, thOJEF&#HHF(FH#(*H#(H
       
      /usr/bin/sarc: line 319: 22862 Segmentation fault
      sarc: Sarcasm device overload detected

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    8. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is what happens when the government pokes its nose into regulating business

      Sarbanes-Oxley is what happens when businesses demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

    9. Re:You'd better comply with Sarbanes-Oxley by Cameroon · · Score: 1

      Complying with Sarbanes-Oxley means complying with the retention policy for e-mail. S-OX does NOT say you have to keep every e-mail forever, but that you have to keep all documents (including email) for a reasonable and clearly defined time.

      And of course not every company needs to comply with S-OX, though even many that don't try to follow many of those requirements.

  16. Offline Caches perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a good idea to go against your company policy, but most Outlook clients are usually configured to use cached Exchange mode to store a copy of all e-mails in a .OST file in your profile directory, so you likely already have a local backup of the e-mails you have stored on your Exchange server. Just look up an "OST to PST" converter on Google, and then you're all set. Surprised no one else caught this.

  17. The company could have a policy of honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have worked for companies with such a policy. Insane loss of productivity when all the history continually disappears.

    It takes a huge legal risk to justify such a policy.

  18. Yes, indeed there is one ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are There Any Smart E-mail Retention Policies?

    Retain (store) email just long enough to forward it on to the destination server.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  19. Why fight it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to be devil's advocate, if that's their policy why fight it? You'll only be bringing trouble on to yourself. Say the company is sued at some point, and it's known that you archived emails against policy- don't you think there are numerous ways that could bite you on the ass?

    I have no idea what you do, of course, but I would think six months is long enough for the emails to be obsolete. If not, well, you shouldn't be responsible for contents deleted in a routine purge.

    If they're personal emails you need to save... I won't state the obvious.

    1. Re:Why fight it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been my experience in the corporate world that the act of trying to protect the company from itself, or hostile entities is never reciprocated by the company for it's employees. CYA, or die.

  20. Not a bad idea? by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I tend to see e-mail as something you use for temporary exchange of messages and tasks/information held therein, not something to be used to archive material.

    I'd argue the company's policy isn't actually far wrong, surely anything over about 180 days is something that is more suited to permanent archiving anyway?

    I'll admit when I was working in tech support and I had our corporate Microsoft keys e-mailed me I kept them in my personal folders for a couple of years but realistically I have to admit I think these would be better placed in an information repository suited to more permanent store of information.

    The company does then of course run the risk of people storing data that puts them at legal risk in that information repository instead however!

    I'm not sure though that there are many circumstances where an e-mail client needs to act as a long term information store. I find it's generally the case that if you need to store it for a long while, it'll almost certainly be something that others in your company will need access to should you get hit by a bus tomorrow and as such, maybe shared folders (with appropriate permissions) are a better choice than personal folders?

    1. Re:Not a bad idea? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > I tend to see e-mail as something you use for temporary exchange of messages

      Well, you and I do, but many people religiously save every email they get forever. I have no idea why they do that. Unless you are an evil lawyer, it can't possibly make any difference what someone said or didn't say two years ago, so I automatically delete all my mail more than a few months old. Other people manage to fill gmail's storage quota with email, which God knows what.

  21. Sarbanes-Oxley Question by toxic666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You left out something very important. Is your large company publicly traded in the US? If yes, it could be looking at violations of Sarbanes-Oxley if they really are purging (and not retaining) e-mail "in an attempt to limit the organization's exposure to legal risk."

    But that is likely not the case. It is more likely the company is trying to limit the amount of data stored on its Exchange system. Adding storage and additional backup capacity is expensive. Implementing a policy that requires end users to keep the size of their mailboxes down does not work, because many people insist they need every bit of those six years of archived e-mail; people use e-mail as much for CYA as doing real business. So, this solution was selected. If it really is important, make the end users do some work to keep it and don't force the company to re architect its storage system to keep years of CYA and personal mail.

    1. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm posting as AC because I'd probably end up fired for mentioning this.

      We keep emails essentially forever. Our company uses its own email system, though it used to use exchange (and people still want to keep using it, despite the fact that it sucks ass). Everyone has 25GB of email space, with more if you request it (and, I assume, are approved for it).

      If there's something you don't want potentially showing up in a court room you shouldn't be emailing it in the first place. You don't know if the other person is saving it locally (and putting those exchange restrictions isn't going to stop this). Same with IM, you don't know if the other person is logging it.

      Perhaps I'm part of the internet generation but I don't see the point in destroying information; no matter how bad it is it may have some unforeseen future usefulness. Bad stuff has a tendency to hang around much longer than good stuff anyway.

      You cannot rely on people not saving information to get you out of legal trouble, instead rely on not saying those things in the first place.

    2. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      I've got to tell you, I think you're incorrect here. I work for a Fortune 500 company and I happen to manage the storage and backup group (in addition to some other responsibilities). It's true that backups cost something, especially if you'll retain them for a while (and we retain things 'forever', because our legal people actually like to be able to go back and find email -- it's been more helpful to our defense than the other side's case). At this point, backing up Exchange makes up 25% of our total backup volume.

      However, there's a very easy way around that, that the original poster mentions -- you can keep your own PSTs. Doing so shifts the responsibility for backing up that email from the backup group to the user. For example, I copy everything to PSTs on my laptop, which (intentionally) does not get backed up.

      For us, we use Symantec's Enterprise Vault to actually keep every single email in one centralized location, which lets us avoid duplication of emails (100 people get a 10MB presentation? Great, we'll make one 10MB backup) and helps when we deal with legal discovery.

      This isn't about saving money on storage and backups. It's about one interpretation on how to improve your legal standing (and, as I noted, it's only one interpretation -- ours is quite the opposite).

    3. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Deleting email is just fine with Sarbanes Oxley as long as you have a specified policy and follow it to the letter. It would be okay to have a policy that email is auto-deleted after 30 days, if your company wanted to do that.
      What is specifically NOT okay is deleting email once an investigation is underway or if there is reason to believe you will be investigated. In those cases, you have a duty to preservce evidennce. if you delete email under these circumstances for example, the judge may instruct the jury to assume that the email was incrimating or may rule summarily against you. Either way, your company is hosed.

    4. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      However, there's a very easy way around that, that the original poster mentions -- you can keep your own PSTs. Doing so shifts the responsibility for backing up that email from the backup group to the user. For example, I copy everything to PSTs on my laptop, which (intentionally) does not get backed up.

      Except that most user laptops/desktop should be backed up and not having a backup policy in place seems just idiotic to me. In other words the backup group STILL has to deal with the data except now it's in a different format. As you pointed out in the end this will result in using even more space for backups (that 10mb file will take up 100mb of backup space).

    5. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lets not forget that this isn't just a criminal or regulatory matter. (Investigation seems to limit it that way. I don't know if that was intentional or accidental or just the way I read the post.)

      It goes for civil cases too. If your best client decides to sue or you think he will, you have to preserve the same too. It can be criminal, regulatory, or civil action or the potential of any or all of them that triggers the preservation rule.

      Otherwise I agree with everything you said.

    6. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by Maint_Pgmr_3 · · Score: 1

      As the backup for the Exchange Admin for our "state" agency, Symantec's Enterprise Vault is slowly putting the Exch Admin in a position of doing other work then Exch. How so? Public Disclosure request can be done by the OHR folks responsible for that action. Everything is 30 days on the exchange server, you decide what is business related and what is not, then into the vault for 7 yrs, in a very few cases, 75 years. Would be interesting to see how many of the "Pizza Thursday" email get vaulted.

    7. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by mpe · · Score: 1

      But that is likely not the case. It is more likely the company is trying to limit the amount of data stored on its Exchange system. Adding storage and additional backup capacity is expensive.

      So is buying additional filing cabinets... Also nobody obliged these people to choose a specific email platform. Any more than they are obliged to choose a specific brand of filing cabinet.

      Implementing a policy that requires end users to keep the size of their mailboxes down does not work, because many people insist they need every bit of those six years of archived e-mail; people use e-mail as much for CYA as doing real business.

      They are also likely to find "creative" ways around such quotas.

    8. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is incorrect. For Sarbanes Oxley, any information that may be material to the correctness of the annual account and balance sheet must be archived for 7 years. This includes e-mail to some extent, e.g. e-mails of board members and any communication related to SOX sign-offs.

    9. Re:Sarbanes-Oxley Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for a large Fortune 100 company that had an agreement with OSHA due to fatalities in another plant. I was in charge of compliance in my facility. Given their pattern of forcing responsibility down as low as possible, so as to save management, I kept, and after 6 years, still have every email I got that was related to business in any way. You bet it was CYA. Better to cover mine and see the upper management people take the hit. They make the big bucks, let them take the heat for their decisions.

  22. Live with the purge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any truly relevant information in emails would end up having to be transferred to another form of documentation. Most projects last more than 180 days; you can't just let information disappear that quickly. Makes a strong case for just using email as the information database. Except for the liability. For most, the cost of having to permute the information into other storage far outweighs the potential cost of liability. For a few high-profile organizations, the reverse is true. Create and apply policy accordingly. And if you do have an aggressive purge policy, well, we know you're trying to hide something.

  23. Your email? Excuse me?? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That email belongs to the company, not you. As someone who accumulates 90% of his work stress from dealing with employee email usage atrocities (please don't email an mp3 mix cd image to 150 of your closest friends from your workstation, kthx), let me tell you what's wrong with your plan.

    Its company property, governed by the policy in place for whatever reason, feel free to violate the policy if you don't want your job.

    Not to mention what will happen if it comes to light that you are violating policy during a discovery proceedure, especially if it comes to light because you brilliantly decided to forward critical confidential company correspondence to somewhere like a Gmail account.

    Brilliant. Really. Good luck finding a job after that.

    1. Re:Your email? Excuse me?? by mschuyler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ha ha not funny. I had to laugh at this. A few years ago I was still mapping drives. I had the "H" (Home) actually-network drive for everyone mapped to one of my servers (huge drives, the server was named Moby Fred) which allowed me to backup everyone's stuff every day pretty nicely on autopilot at night. Also, if someone's box failed I could swap it out with a standard install and not worry about their saved stuff being lost 'cept for maybe bookmarks too bad eat shit. But my nightly backups started to fail. They needed another tape all of a sudden where I was in the 50% used category the week before--plenty of leeway, or so I thought.

      Turns out one employee decided to 'archive' all his MP3s onto the H: drive and nearly filled the thing up. This was actually kind of work-related (He was the music librarian).

      I had a VERY short, emotional, and poignant conversation with him (I was so very pissed!), whereupon the problem suddenly disappeared.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    2. Re:Your email? Excuse me?? by carlzum · · Score: 2

      The parent is a little abrasive but his advice is spot-on. Seriously, don't try to circumvent your company's email retention policy. If an email contains information or attachments that may be of value for some remote reason, save it in another format. Add every contact to your address book and you won't have to search your messages for an address. If you're continually inconvenienced and it's making your job harder, you won't be alone. In that case the policy should be relaxed eventually.

      If you're worried about losing personal email, use a personal account, even if it's non-business email with co-workers. All other messages are the property of your employer. Fear of litigation is not the sole reason for retention policies, there are also less storage costs, reduced privacy concerns, regulatory compliance, etc.

    3. Re:Your email? Excuse me?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he has a legitimate need to keep emails longer why not request the company make a reasonable accommodation?

      There is no work related reason to send out MP3s. However I work on the same case for years sometimes and I need those emails.

      I avoid this problem by owning my own business.

    4. Re:Your email? Excuse me?? by syousef · · Score: 1

      That email belongs to the company, not you.

      It's still your arse on the line if you break the law by not retaining it, or find you can't prove you didn't do the wrong thing because you work for a bunch of morons that have deleted evidence that you've done nothing improper..

      As someone who accumulates 90% of his work stress from dealing with employee email usage atrocities (please don't email an mp3 mix cd image to 150 of your closest friends from your workstation, kthx), let me tell you what's wrong with your plan

      Yeah way to go with the straw man. I don't think this guy's looking to save email of a mix cd image to 150 friends. Some idiot user with no social skills making your job hard doesn't mean you get to duck questions regarding legitimate use. Your entire "us vs them" attitude is unprofessional to say the least.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Your email? Excuse me?? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Brilliant. Really. Good luck finding a job after that.

      Who informs the next employer?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  24. How about the reverse problem? by HitekHobo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The IT staff at my former employer saved copies of all email that went through the server... indefinitely. No, they didn't tell employees they were doing it. And yes, they had a search engine so they could do across the board searches of whatever terms seemed interesting at the time.

    I find it interesting that different companies are going to different extremes. Some are limiting their exposure by trying to delete all mail and others are saving all mail in order to be able to comply with court orders (or perhaps just get a bit big brother-ish.

    For a REALLY strange twist, the company I'm speaking of forced employees to maintain mailboxes under 100MB... while the server admins never deleted a single email that hit the server.

    1. Re:How about the reverse problem? by truesaer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My former company began archiving all email permanently due to some lawsuits, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. FINALLY that 12MB limit on email disappeared. I never could figure out how a major tech company couldn't manage a quota higher than 12MB in this area of cheap storage...

    2. Re:How about the reverse problem? by dzelenka · · Score: 1

      The IT staff at my former employer saved copies of all email that went through the server... indefinitely. No, they didn't tell employees they were doing it. And yes, they had a search engine so they could do across the board searches of whatever terms seemed interesting at the time.

      I find it interesting that different companies are going to different extremes. Some are limiting their exposure by trying to delete all mail and others are saving all mail in order to be able to comply with court orders (or perhaps just get a bit big brother-ish.

      For a REALLY strange twist, the company I'm speaking of forced employees to maintain mailboxes under 100MB... while the server admins never deleted a single email that hit the server.

      Those companies that impose draconian email limits are just going to force employees to copy the messages to files, save them in an unauthorized client, or print them out. Doing that still leaves those messages open to discovery or public disclosure requests. But it makes searching them MORE time consuming.

      Archiving everything (after the spam filter is done) is the only reasonable option. It's just a problem of setting a policy for retention and then enforcing that policy in a way that lets employees do their work.

      --
      Bah!
    3. Re:How about the reverse problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't a 12MB limit due to storage costs. It is (was) a 12MB limit as that's a simple way of measuring when someone is using roughly the amount of other server resources (e.g. CPU, RAM, network) available.

      Trying to specify a limit in terms of total resources just gets too complicated but it's pretty hard to over-burden a server when you can only store 12MB of data there.

      It also leads towards business practices they might want to encourage like not storing lots of email - dealing with it and then deleting, etc.

    4. Re:How about the reverse problem? by asc99c · · Score: 1

      The mailbox limit could purely be due to backup problems. My workplace has a similar rule, because the overnight backups of the shared drives were still going at 6 am the next morning. The mailboxes were huge files and everyone's was updated every day.

      However we are allowed to move stuff to an archive file rather than delete it all. But outlook sets the modification time of any PST file it opens, whether or not it is changed. So normally I have to leave the archive closed and only rarely touch it. I can see why the IT team might think this is too tricky for normal users.

    5. Re:How about the reverse problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never could figure out how a major tech company couldn't manage a quota higher than 12MB in this area of cheap storage...

      Storage is cheap; redundancy, backups, and managing that storage isn't.

      Space, performance, reliability: pick two.
                      -- Richard Elling in zfs-discuss, 2008-06-23

    6. Re:How about the reverse problem? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I worked for a particular university in their IT department for a few extremely long years. They had a 2MB hard quota on mail spools. I worked around this issue within my first few weeks by putting up my own mail server and forwarding all mail to it from the University mail servers. The university had a significant deficiency in mail admin knowledge (which I came to them with a plethora of). During an outage I discovered some serious screwups in their mail system. They didn't put an MX record on the university's domain. RFCs allow delivery to a domain's A record (if one exists) in the absence of MX records. At this university mail delivery flowed to their internal admin box (the AIX DB server). It happened to have Sendmail up and running on it with a default config and local access to the mail spool directories (that were remotely mounted to the mail server). All those years and they thought that their intended mail server (another old AIX box) was handling all mail functions when in reality it only handled outbound mail flow and delivery to MUAs. Inbound mail delivery was sent through their DB server by accident. When the DB server suffered an outage mail delivery also failed and no one could figure out why (like I said, a deficiency in mail administration). Hell it took me a little while to find it just because I wasn't looking for that particular problem. I couldn't imagine a mail admin could over look something so simple and standard. But they did. I remember when I told them what the problem was. Disbelief that I figured out what was wrong, that I knew what I was talking about, blame placed on my network, etc. But that's what it was.

  25. The only E-mail Retention Policy you need by Hackerlish · · Score: 1

    1. Don't.

    Sweet, huh?

  26. Smart email solutions by nickthisname · · Score: 1

    Two Dixie cups and a long piece of string. Just don't use your crayons.

  27. really ? by johnjones · · Score: 1

    thats what I would go for IMAP next would be pop3 if they have disabled both of those services which they would not usually...

    then connect up Entourage on a mac and simply drag and drop alternatively evolution on a linux vmware

    failing that simply forward all the mail to gmail or free email account that you can search in a instant... but no one know about...(if you are smart you will configure outlook to use the gmail (or free provider) as the sending email server so things dont go out through the exchange server alerting the admins there when they look at the traffic also make sure that you use the SSL to smtp out )

    so what I am saying is there are ways around this unless your org monitors everything and even then they can easily fail

    most of the time things like word documents will trip up in litigation so they should not be trying to burn everything what they are trying to do is appear to have a policy so the lawyers are satisfied....

    silly but true and it's frankly dumb

    regards

    John Jones

    1. Re:really ? by MikeB0Lton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that all works great until your company discovers what you are doing during an audit for Sarbanes Oxley or HIPAA :-)

    2. Re:really ? by Lord_Sintra · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what happened with that massive Media Defender email leak a while back: someone forwarded it all to a gmail account and failed to secure it properly.

    3. Re:really ? by mpe · · Score: 1

      failing that simply forward all the mail to gmail or free email account that you can search in a instant... but no one know about...

      If you get caught the most likely assumption is that you are sending information to a competitor...

      (if you are smart you will configure outlook to use the gmail (or free provider) as the sending email server so things dont go out through the exchange server alerting the admins there when they look at the traffic also make sure that you use the SSL to smtp out )

      If there are proper admins operating the network they are likely to notice these connections, possibly even if they are on port 22, 443, 993, etc. You'd also better hope that nobody looks to closely at the headers of emails from you.

    4. Re:really ? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Anyone actually USING retention policies in Exchange is also using Rights Management on the emails - so forwarding would be forbidden. Sending through Gmail would be impossible (firewalls, you know. Any company worth it's salt doesn't have POP3, SMTP, SMTPS or IMAP open on the firewall) and in gross violation of company policy.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  28. Project Completion and Architectural Decisions by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A balance needs to be struck between the negatives of two strategies:

    * Perpetual archiving of e-mail - wastes server disk space, increases tape backup volume, and (more notoriously) can leave "clues" that predatory litigators salivate over.
    * Non-archival of e-mail - internal accusations and decisions can't be resolved, difficult to track decisions and their history, circumventable by printing the e-mail with headers.

    The solution is as follows:

    1. Digest only the final decisions of e-mails and the essential reasoning thereof, or make a digest of the decisions in a collaborative project wiki where buy-in from the stakeholders can be tracked.

    2a. Upon project completion (ISO9000-type project gating), archive all project files, documentation and essential digest e-mails.
    2b. Simultaneously destroy all other e-mails using secure forensically-unrecoverable techniques to prevent accidental recovery by thieves.

    3. Any other e-mails regarding general architectural or administrative decisions which have implications for future development in the company should be digested, placed on a company wiki, and then the remainder securely destroyed.

    Using this method, any questionable or potentially illegal decisions can be greatly avoided or reduced from a purely legal perspective while retaining sufficient information to continue operations and development. This policy won't end all legal issues, but the key is to have procedures that are centered around the guise of IT efficiency and operational simplicity to purposely dispel any other alleged intent by third parties that expressed or implies destruction of future evidence.

  29. retentions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a backup once a month of every system in the organization including email servers that are kept forever. It may not retain every single email but it is still pretty good. Along with this, (we use Notes) I replicate my current database every hour from 8-5 to a local drive on my PC, as well as my Notes archive database every time I log in or out of my PC. I have became aware to a manager having access to everyone's email database, then deleting a email that could implicate him/herself or another manager. So I decide to keep local copies.

  30. If you need it for more than 180 days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...then it shouldn't only be documented in an e-mail.

    A lot of people use their inbox as a "safety blanket" for documenting things "I might need later." This is a bad idea for reasons other than data retention policies. Information rot can set in, and you'll have a copy of information that might not be up-to-date. This is especially problematic with documents, where you have no idea if the version in your inbox is the current version.

    A good workaround (if your company allows it) is to have an internal wiki to publish "useful information" to as a shared, versioned source of knowledge. On such projects, I've noted most of our team feels much less reliant on e-mail as a store of knowledge.

  31. using Exchange for email... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of IMAP?"

    1. Re:using Exchange for email... by mosch · · Score: 1

      I just lost The Game.

  32. Purging email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that all company communications now had to be kept for at least 7 years in accordance with legislation introduced BECAUSE companies were destroying emails that proved illegal activities. Maybe the laws vary between countries more than I realised.

    1. Re:Purging email? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      But if I delete an email from my system, how are you ever going to prove that it existed?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  33. It's not just the company you protect by empesey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know how often I've saved my own can by retrieving an email from someone denying one thing or another or if a project goes south due to additional requests. By demanding that all requests be in written form or in email, I can produce a paper trail of all the requirements for a given project. As developers, we do nothing unless we have an official request. This limits our responsibility when things go over budget or behind schedule.

    Deleting emails when a project is over is not necessarily a good idea, either. Patterns of irrational and poorly thought out requests can be produced over a long time period and this can also be used to cover one's caboose or even to give priorities to scope creep during crunch time. If things are going slow and they want some feature added in, we might be more inclined to meet that request. But if we're facing hard deadlines, we can push back and make the requester decide which are the most important features to add.

  34. Doesn't belong there. by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Email != a document repository. If you need to keep something, print as a PDF or store it somewhere more appropriate.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    1. Re:Doesn't belong there. by acvh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Email != a document repository. If you need to keep something, print as a PDF or store it somewhere more appropriate.

      Perhaps in your parochial world. I'm on assignment in a company that uses Lotus Notes as it is intended to be used, and email is just one more document in a database that is accessible through many views, some of which are not a mail box. Works quite well.

      On my last assignment the company routed EVERY email to an archive database, on the advice of their lawyers (not in house, real lawyers).

    2. Re:Doesn't belong there. by binaryspiral · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Email != a document repository. If you need to keep something, print as a PDF or store it somewhere more appropriate.

      I couldn't agree more. If you got interesting or useful data - make a wiki, use sharepoint, or get it somewhere that will make it useful.

    3. Re:Doesn't belong there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that I have somewhere more appropriate to store it. Frankly, the best tool I have available is, Heaven help me, Outlook. I am not allowed to install any software on my company computer. The list of approved software is terribly small. And actually getting IT to install approved software is a royal pain. You use the tools available. When you have only a hammer, you tend to treat everything like a nail.

    4. Re:Doesn't belong there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more. What a pain it is to sit with the user during a "scanpst" of a 20GB .pst file that went corrupt because they get 300 emails a day and the folders are organized "how their brain works."

    5. Re:Doesn't belong there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      don't you think companies like Altria Group, Microsoft, Raytheon, and on have some serious needs for internal lawyers?

      My guess is that those are the real kind. Someone who reflects the ethics of their employer.

    6. Re:Doesn't belong there. by dogugotw · · Score: 1

      Oh, and let's not forget that now we have records in a system that is easily searched so discovery suddenly isn't a huge issue like it is with Outlook/Exchange - save time, save money, work normal hours

    7. Re:Doesn't belong there. by jman11 · · Score: 1

      What you want to say is that email was not intended as a document repository. It is, however, used as one.

      See it's like saying Viagra is not a way to help you get an erection; it's a way to cure hypertension. You can shout and yell, but people are still going to take it before trying to get their 60 year old happy sausage attentive.

    8. Re:Doesn't belong there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Printing to pdf is parochial...and you're using Lotus Notes?

    9. Re:Doesn't belong there. by Degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just a funny/sad story here. So an email in GroupWise is just a record in a database. The space left in the record is greater than 2,000 bytes after the pointers and subject line are filled in. If the body of your message is less than 2,000 bytes, the whole message is just one database record. If the body of your message is greater than 2,000 bytes, the first chunk is stored in the database record, and then an overflow file is created.

      BTW - I hate HTML email. Doubles the size of every message, practically guarantees that an overflow file will be created, and for what? Oooh! Comic Sans Serif!!!

      So some daffy in one of the departments gets the idea that email to and from the public needs to be stored in .PDF form. So she starts going through all her email from current to past. She prints out a message, slaps the printout into a scanner, and scans the image into a .PDF. Saves the .PDF to the network. Literally, she turns thousands of 2KB - 4KB searchable, indexed, (with metadata and attachment) messages into thousands of 2MB unsearchable, unindexable, (sans metadata and attachment) .PDFs. We only found out, because 20 GB later she filled the hard disk for her department. (Their server space was already running on empty, but when they ran out so much faster than we had planned, we had to go looking).

      I don't know if she deleted her public facing emails after that. If she did, we're screwed.

      You may argue that email is not a document repository - but that only is true if your email system wasn't designed to be a document repository. GroupWise has a built-in DMS (and has had, since the late 1990's), and it is a far more efficient system than Just A Bunch Of Disk Space (what with single-instance-storage and built-in indexing and all that).

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
  35. Go with the flow by dave562 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the information is important enough to keep around after six months then it should be documented either as a policy or white paper. It seems that what your organization is attempting to do is to limit email to functioning as a communications medium. They don't want your Exchange servers to be an information repository. I can see the logic in what they are doing. In all seriousness if you haven't acted on information in an email in six months it either wasn't that important, or you're not staying on top of your responsibility. If it is information that needs to be kept because it is integral to the functioning of your department then there are better places than email to keep that information.

    1. Re:Go with the flow by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but...

      Sometimes, email really is the best way to track things, especially when your email client is being used as an information "portal" by people other than yourself. For instance, feature requests, bug reporting, and project discussions. Each department, and sometimes even people within a department, use their email differently due to the different roles they hold.

      Such a policy can be very disruptive for people such as, say, front end support, employee satisfaction, HR, and so forth which need to have a cohesive record of correspondence, often going beyond 180 days prior, and they've got no other alternative to track these things. It does NOT work to simply change the policy and remove that functionality from the users; they need to have a substantiate issue/document/content/etc. tracking system and repository to take the place of the old system without reduced functionality.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  36. Blame the policy... by PhearoX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My company has been doing this for years, but our policy is only 90 days. I do go ahead and copy any 'really important' emails into OpenOffice documents, but these are few and far between.

    I find that the best way to get policies changed is to emphasize their faults. When my company started docking pay for not submitting a change request to reboot a broken production server, I basically started submitting change requests every time I had to take a shit. This policy hasn't changed yet, but I guarantee it will.

    Let the emails get deleted. Don't go out of your way to save them if it isn't immediately obvious to do so. When my emails go missing and I need them, I let the management know 'the retention policy ate it'. Whether they like the excuse or not, it's a fact that the missing information is not my fault, and this will hold up in court if I ever have to sue for unlawful termination.

    It's a job. I'm paid to do it. If I have to re-do work as a result of something like this, I'll get paid just as much the second time as I did the first. *shrug*

    1. Re:Blame the policy... by honkycat · · Score: 1

      That approach will work great if your company is broken or if you don't actually like your job. Part of doing one's job is doing it well and doing it within company policies. Email is not generally intended for long-term information storage, and that's especially true if your company uses a 6-month retention policy. If you're unable to foresee that you'll need something emailed to you after it rolls off the server, you're not doing your job. "The retention policy ate it" is a lame excuse unless it was really unforeseeable that you'd need it...

    2. Re:Blame the policy... by PhearoX · · Score: 1

      ...unless it was really unforeseeable that you'd need it...

      Exactly right...which is why I said:

      ...if it isn't immediately obvious to do so.

      I don't worry too much about the retention policy. Generally speaking, the only thing that would burn me is attachments. I am in the security group, so just about everything that crosses my desk is an emergency and is completely resolved within a week or two. I just save off all attachments, and if an email I need is getting really old, I forward it to myself to reset the timer.

      FWIW, I think a better approach would be to give users a single folder (and allow child-folders beneath it, of course) that is exempt from the retention policy, but still must adhere to the mailbox storage quota. This would allow people to save important messages they need to do their job, but also force the user to keep it clean in order to keep receiving new messages.

  37. Forward it to yourself? by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    I've never used any Exchange-based junk, so this might be totally ridiculous, but what if you forward every incoming email to an address that you create for the purpose of archiving the stuff?

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  38. Let me get this straight. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    You are not in a position of decision making authority where you could veto this idea, or specify what the policy will be.

    So explain the reason you care, exactly?

    Get into a position where you make the decisions. Until then, don't waste your time worrying about this stuff.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  39. Simple, but not easy.... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Have the corporate lawyers tell you what you need to save.
    That's the simple part for you

    Save it. Not so easy, often, but there are plenty of tools. I'm not paid by anybody to market them to you.

    If you're with a business that has clear legal needs to save electronic correspondence, I'm surprised you haven't already been getting the sales pitch. Or maybe your executive team has been.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  40. Use Evolution Exchange integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your company runs the "Outlook Web Access" service for Exchange (i.e. webmail), then simply run Evolution with the Exchange integration, and you can copy the emails to Evolutions's equivalent of a .PST file no problem; that's what I do.

  41. Is anybody doing this right? by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes. I save them in notepad.

    --
    What?
    1. Re: Is anybody doing this right? by DjangoShagnasty · · Score: 1

      Yes. I save them in notepad.

      Any geek doing it right uses emacs! ;)

  42. Shoot the Lawyers by Detritus · · Score: 0, Troll

    I used to work for a company that decided to delete all email after 30 days. While I'm sure it made the lawyers happy, it made life difficult for anyone who was trying to actually do work. Email archives are important as a record of decisions, requirements, purchases, agreements with customers, and company policy directives. Sometimes people and corporations conveniently "forget" what they said months, or years, ago. If I can't keep it in my mailbox, I'm going to print it out and store it in a safe location.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Shoot the Lawyers by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "While I'm sure it made the lawyers happy, it made life difficult for anyone who was trying to actually do work."

      This is the part I can't get. How is deleting mail making difficult to do the work? It might result into your work being ineffective but how is it that you can't do the work?

      Let's see the stupidest scenario I can come to:
      -Please, can you e-mail me a price list I'll need in fortyfive days?
      -Of course.
      (fortyfive days after that)
      -OK, so let's see the price list. Damn retention policy! It's deleted. Now, I'll have to re-schedule the job to be run in fortyfive days from now!
      -Please, can you e-mail me a price list I'll need in fortyfive days?
      -Of course ...

      See? Nothing stops you for doing the work you are being paid for. At most, the policy avoids you to be an effective worker but since you are not on a decision-making position it's not up to you to decide how you should expend your payed-by-the-company time nor how. If you feel your company's policy is nuts, you certainly should point this up to your managers and ask them for the proper way to do the job; if it still so, time to polish your resume and look for a new job, but do not break the policies stablished for those that sign your paychecks.

    2. Re:Shoot the Lawyers by Detritus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When the company has essentially gone "paperless", email gets used for everything. That includes work directives, requirements documents, policy statements, HR information. and almost everything that used to require a paper form. If you think I'm going to sacrifice myself on the altar of blind obedience to authority, you are naive.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Shoot the Lawyers by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Here's a better example, and one which would have happened if my company deleted emails (which they don't):

      - Help, I have a problem! It is xyz
      Lots of discussion back and forth to get exact details
      - Okay, I now understand the problem and I'll put the fix will be in the next release version I build (due about 45 days from now)
      - Thanks, I'll wait for the update
      45 days later
      - Hey, the problem is still here after the update!
      - Oh dear! Because my email server has deleted all of our previous correspondence, you'll have to give me ALL the details again!

      As I said, thankfully that doesn't happen since we don't delete emails, but I often find myself referencing emails MONTHS after the fact, even when I originally never had any expectation to be looking at them again (so you can't really say, "if it was important, back it up", because I simply DON'T KNOW what's important until it crops up again)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    4. Re:Shoot the Lawyers by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "If you think I'm going to sacrifice myself on the altar of blind obedience to authority, you are naive."

      Yeah, sure, it's much better to be sacrificed yourself on the altar of the "but I did it for the good of the company" when it's discovered you are breaking company policies on a bad day.

    5. Re:Shoot the Lawyers by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Here's a better example, and one which would have happened if my company deleted emails (which they don't):"

      Yours is quite a different situation. I by no means am saying deleting so much useful e-mail is intelligent nor it should be a "company policy" but that *if* that's the policy there's no good, neither immediate nor long term on breaking it (on the short term you are exposing yourself to be fired; on the long term, since everything seems to be working as expected, it must be that the policy was a good one, opening the door for the next stupid policy to be pushed from management).

    6. Re:Shoot the Lawyers by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Information on problems that need to be fixed should be stored in a bug/request tracker, which would not only allow you to reference it later, but also give access to other people so that they can do it, and keep the other person updated on what's happening.

      It'll also make it a lot easier to be able to say "actually, that won't go into the next release, because we've already got more work then we can do. here, look at this report to verify it if you like"

  43. How do you like prison by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Retention policies are generally set by counsel. If you violate that it's generally at your own risk.

    1. Re:How do you like prison by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Violations of company policy are not criminal offenses.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:How do you like prison by mosch · · Score: 1

      Reprimand and job termination are risks.

    3. Re:How do you like prison by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Theft of internal company communications (forwarding company email to your Gmail account) can be.

    4. Re:How do you like prison by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      How can it be theft?

      Im entitled to store my email if I wish to do so.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    5. Re:How do you like prison by agpc · · Score: 1

      Not yet. Just wait until the corporate lobbyists enact legislation which permits a company to detain you indefinitely for exceeding their $35.00 per day food allowance by $2.34.

    6. Re:How do you like prison by gelfling · · Score: 1

      If you work for the government they most certainly are a Federal offence. If you work for a Federally regulated industry like pharma or defense they are probably a criminal offense. And so on.

    7. Re:How do you like prison by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      It's not your e-mail.

      It's stored on company servers, and writen on company time. I've never worked for a company where it's "my" e-mail.

    8. Re:How do you like prison by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Any communication that is addressed to me becomes mine its the same with snail mail.

      If the company chooses to use their servers to carry the mail that is their choice but they have no rights to the content.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  44. SOP at Intel Jones Farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This crap is standard at Intel Hellsburito. Important notes disappear after a few weeks. No one ever mentions this little fact until it's too late.

  45. Consider the information by teh+moges · · Score: 1

    You need to consider what information is in these emails and what needs to be done with that information. Example, from my last job in a Helpdesk/IT Officer for a small business:

    Email Type -> Where it goes
    Request for help from IT -> Send to our helpdesk system
    Serial number from supplier for appliction -> Save to our IT Auditing software, print out and file
    Information on fixing a program -> Print out if needed soon, and copy information to our procedure manual folder on the network.

    Look at your email more as an inbox and less of a filing system. If your upper management have taken this step, they may just decide one day (after something happens) to accidentally 'wipe' all email. If you work based on the assumption that will happen, you should be able to live with this rule.

  46. wait till... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait till your company gets sued by a patent troll and you had a string of messages showing you had or used the idea before they applied, and were thus the true inventor. Mail destroyed can cost company millions.

    Wait until you need exculpatory evidence from that mail stream. That being destroyed also can cost your company plenty. Remind the legal dept. of this.

    You don't know what is needed like this typically for a long time (years) but keep the mail because you know it is important in your record of your ideas or acts.

    If nothing else can be done, select all and save mail to text, but that is not as good evidence as mail and may not fly in court.

    Let your legal department beware.

    These things have happened, to me and others.

    Destroying this kind of information can be very costly in terms of establishing blame when something goes wrong too. (Someone promises particular functions in email, represents something, but blow the email away and you may have no evidence this was done.)

    Only destroy stuff indicating wrongdoing...or better yet, don't do the wrongdoing in the first place. Also caution people not to send love letters or the like in email since it may come back to haunt them years later. This may save a lot of wasted time by workers...

  47. Find a way to archive it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moronic IT persons are already saying crap like "the email belongs to the company, not you". Perhaps the computer on which I wrote them does, but *I* have written those emails, therefore they belong to me also.

    I have always archived everything I wrote and every document I produced in my work on an external hard drive, that I took with me when I switched jobs. I have the first piece of email of my first job, 10 years ago. I have everything, but that's only for my personal use and reference. There is a value to me in archiving it. Nobody can prevent me from archiving emails that *I* wrote or received. Nobody. And nobody can force me to hand over those. I will destroy them if I have to.

    Oh, and f^@k the IT people.

    1. Re:Find a way to archive it... by grimmfarmer · · Score: 1

      The moronic IT persons are already saying crap like "the email belongs to the company, not you". Perhaps the computer on which I wrote them does, but *I* have written those emails, therefore they belong to me also.

      That depends entirely upon the terms of your employment: sad but true (note: IANAL). If you have a contract governing your employment, I'd suggest you look at it and get legal help interpreting it, if need be.

      Oh, and f^@k the IT people.

      You're perfectly welcome to return to your previous life of using pen and paper, the (POTS) telephone, postal mail, and trying to get a date in person. Let me know how that all works out for you.

    2. Re:Find a way to archive it... by JoeZeppy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The moronic IT persons are already saying crap like "the email belongs to the company, not you". Perhaps the computer on which I wrote them does, but *I* have written those emails, therefore they belong to me also.

      I have always archived everything I wrote and every document I produced in my work on an external hard drive, that I took with me when I switched jobs. I have the first piece of email of my first job, 10 years ago. I have everything, but that's only for my personal use and reference. There is a value to me in archiving it. Nobody can prevent me from archiving emails that *I* wrote or received. Nobody. And nobody can force me to hand over those. I will destroy them if I have to.

      Oh, and f^@k the IT people.

      Ya know, it's people like you that make life difficult for the rest of us that are just following the rules set out for us by the people above. I'll bet you're a developer, right? Therefore you walk on water, and we should all bow before your mighty brain.

      Have fun in pound-me-in-the-ass prison after you're cited for contempt of court, you asshole.

      your friendly neighborhood IT person.

    3. Re:Find a way to archive it... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I share your view, if I write something it belongs to me, same goes for anything that has been addressed to me.

      If I receive an email then that email belongs to me and Ill do what I want with it.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:Find a way to archive it... by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      On the grounds that you think that it's your e-mail, because you wrote it, I assume you also believe that anything you produce during work time is also yours.

      So, why not just go straight to the client and ask if they want it at a discounted rate for working direct with you, and you'll get them off having to pay your employer, because the product is yours anyway.

  48. Lawyers trying to avoid work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I have spoken with lawyers, it usually takes a few months to get an answer. If the forged purge age is shorter than the time it takes the lawyers respond, then perhaps it's a ploy to avoid working.

  49. file imp stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    important stuff should be sent as an attachment to email
    put important stuff in a WP/Text file and file it

  50. Criminal, just criminal by grolaw · · Score: 1

    Document retention policies ought to follow the IRS document retention guidelines. 5 years at a minimum.

    Avoiding liability under SOX by failing to report the improper operation of the corporation and destroying the evidence is a bad, bad idea.

    I expect spoilation sanctions for any document destroyed before the IRS standards.

  51. Two different questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are there any good retention policies out there? No. The good retention policy is to save what you need, delete what you don't. Which is not a policy at all.

    What would I recommend for a corporation? Don't use e-mail at all. If you refuse to follow that advice, use a system that deletes on first read and cannot be used to create copies (harder than it seems).

    There are several reasons for keeping mail. At the top of everyone's list is self-preservation. It's important to be able to prove that this or that decision was made for these reasons or that so-and-so really did tell you to do whatever. This is necessary because in the modern corporate ethos, the employees and shareholders take all the risks and senior management reaps all the gains. Everyone needs protection. But it probably won't help you.

    Another, better, reason is the reason writing was invented in the first place: to recall past events and information not held in one's memory. This is where the "right policy" really shines. Unfortunately, anything worth keeping is also worth a subpoena when someone decides to fuck with you (or your company, but remember that companies do not suffer, their employees and shareholders suffer; if something you wrote, or kept, harms "the company" you can bet it will end up harming you a lot more). So short of obliterating most of the civil law on the books today, we're back to keeping nothing. You as an individual stand to lose your life (if you lose your job and are blackballed, you will die or wish you had). But as always most of the gains from saving mail accrue to senior management in the form of better corporate performance and higher pay. You have no personal incentive to save anything unless you are preparing for a wrongful termination lawsuit. In that case I hope you have printouts, because the mail your lawyer subpoenas probably won't be there no matter what any "policy" says.

    Cynical? Sure I am. But that's just the way it goes. The wise employee does not commit to writing anything of any conceivable value or interest. If it's worth saying, it's worth saying in a hallway conversation. If it needs to be written down, be sure your name does not end up on it. Then you don't need to care what senior management is telling you to retain or purge. And if you need some piece of information you would have had if you'd saved everything, just wing it. You would not have received any incremental benefit from doing your job better and you're going to take the fall when things go wrong no matter what you do, so you might as well not bother. Get as much money out of them in the meantime as you can, and protect it from debasement by converting it into gold and silver. Then when the system inevitably flushes you out, you'll have something to survive on.

    Being an employee is like buying bonds. In the best case, you get a small fixed income stream for a while. In the worst case, you get nothing. There is no upside. There is nothing to strive for or invest yourself in. But unlike the bond market, where you can buy CDSs, there is nothing you can do to protect yourself from your employer. Since you can't help yourself and have no incentive to help your employer, the best thing to do is muddle along, keep your head down, and do everything you can to avoid being noticed. Not bothering to write anything down is just one example of this approach. In this way you may survive until macroeconomic conditions inevitably make "painful decisions" necessary for senior management, better known as cancelling your employment and wishing you the best of luck somewhere else while cancelling dividends or buybacks (making those shares and options they insisted you accept as part of your compensation package worth dramatically less and fucking over the existing shareholders as well). But take comfort - your beloved senior managers are safe and secure no matter what happens; even if the company folds they took home enough in their first year of work to live on for life. Doesn't that make you feel better?

    1. Re:Two different questions by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      What would I recommend for a corporation? Don't use e-mail at all.

      You weren't expecting to be taken seriously, were you?

      Sometimes technology is worth the risks. Like paper money. I'm not going to be converting any of mine to gold as you suggest...weak as the USD is now, at least I can pay bills with it (utilities don't like it when you mail them gold bullion). And not all of us hate our jobs so much that we're unwilling to even lift our heads up. I'm calling troll on this one.

  52. Re:Look !! This is not NEWS !! by Kneo24 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Calling a jerk, a jerk, is not trolling. Someone do this guy a favor and spend a mod point to put him back to positive.

  53. Use an ECM by Sharpner · · Score: 1

    Admittedly, this is a suggestion that only a large, committed organization can implement, but it is sane:

    Drag email worthy of retention into an Enterprise Content Management (ECM) system.

    You can find ECMs nowadays that are well integrated with your email client (and may even allow users to ignore that they are moving information out of Exchange). You can think of Exchange as merely a staging area for all incoming information; anything with long-term business value should be expected to end up in the ECM where it can be shared, portalized, linked to wikis or other knowledge management applications, filed by project or business area with related information in other content types, searched six ways to Sunday (Exchange is woeful at this), etc., etc.

    If you're able to do this, then you shouldn't miss the other 95% (I'm pulling that figure out of the air), the dreck that's left behind in Exchange, when it's aged out and shredded.

    If you're not able to do this, and you're trying to adapt your email repository as a long-term knowledge archive, at best you'll have an individual repository for yourself, not your team or your organization, that can't be easily shared or integrated with other related knowledge.

    That's why you shouldn't mind the retention limits established in Exchange. As to why they should be established at all, consider that the organization has no business interest in maintaining a gigantic archive that is 95% worthless, poorly organized, poorly indexed, unsharable crap and that, if a legal discovery request ever does hit, will be an unbelievable burden to sift through. Plus, the retention deadline gives people an added incentive to move the valuable stuff into the valuable place.

  54. Guidance Software will tell you how (or how not) by LegalAngie · · Score: 1

    Basically related to this, is the fact that Guidance Software has been pushing the federal rules for ediscovery and the safe harbor rule that protects corporate organizations when they employ a "policy" and practice of email destructions, however, they have failed miserably at this themselves. not only due they not have a retention policy, but they do not (did not) back up their email and have been burned over an eoe case. check out http://commonscold.typepad.com/eddupdate/2008/06/todd-v-guidance.html and the actual sanctions that are being imposed against them http://commonscold.typepad.com/eddupdate/files/Guidance.pdf even their own larry gill has posted to slashdot on privacy, he is one of the main defendendents in this case!!

  55. How about ECM? by micromuncher · · Score: 1

    Several enterprise content management systems (like LiveLink, that I hate) support almost transparent email integration. You could forward your mail to an "email folder", and let whatever records management module (and retention policy etc) take place.

    I saw someone mention forward mail to wiki, that you can also do with LiveLink discussion boards (not an endorsement for LiveLInk).

    Point is, moving it into an ECM brings it to whatever corporate records management has re policy and such.

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher
  56. Re:Guidance Software will tell you how (or how not by base3 · · Score: 1

    Guidance Software? Talk about being hoisted on one's own petard! If I were plaintiff's counsel (IANAL), I'd fry them with their association with forensics and imply that it's awfully convenient that they "lost" incriminating email unrecoverably.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  57. Simple policy... Straight forward..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using EMAIL for a file system is just ridiculous.....

    It is even more insane to use it for document distribution....

    "System of Record" should exist on a server.... All documents of significance should be posted on a server. Review should take place on the server.

    If you receive an email that is significant, it should be posted to said server....

    Mail with Document Attachments should be discouraged....

    EMAIL should be declared a "personal opinion" and not reflecting the official view of the corporation/etc....

    EMAIL Policy should state as such....

  58. Don't Work for Criminals by dfetter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If these guys are scared of hanging onto their emails, they probably have something to be scared of, and it's not just discovery in the law case sense. It's discovery of actual crimes, and you're going to be an accessory to one sooner rather than later if you keep working there.

    --
    What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    1. Re:Don't Work for Criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the among the more retarded things I've seen come out of someone's keyboard. Get off your judgemental closet-domineering ass, go to the real world, and you'll notice you don't have to commit crimes to have legal liability. What if they're being subpoened because one of their clients is in litigation and they didn't do a damn thing? If they threw out the email then they don't have to hire a lawyer or bother their IT staff with this shit.

    2. Re:Don't Work for Criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you work for a public company of any size you are probably used to being sued by random people for random things. Did anyone think McDonald's getting sued because someone spilled hot coffee on themselves made them 'criminals'?

      So reducing the amount of email you have to go through when dealing with lawyers can save you literally thousands of hours on a case that you shouldn't have to be dealing with in the first place.

      So your view of why people are doing this is a bit narrow.

  59. treat email like snail mail, as was intended by Meorah · · Score: 1

    Your inbox should have NEVER been used as a permanent store for your important email that you want to keep permanently or for longer than the company storage policy dictates. People just decided they would get lazy and do it that way since it usually works about 95% of the time.

    I always cherry-pick important email from my personal accounts and print them and file them. A more technically savvy way of doing the same thing is exactly what the company is recommending; that is, save them as a .doc (print) and put them in a folder (file them). It is exactly the same thing you do with your important mail that you get from the postal service... I hear no whining about having to hold onto your tax returns instead of just reading them and chucking them in the bin.

    Another alternative, depending on company firewall policy, is to setup a pop3 account from your personal ISP (separate from your main ISP email account), add it to your outlook profile at work in addition to your exchange user mailbox, and forward important email to that pop3 account where you will get near real-time confirmation that it arrived and is in an account that you control even if you are terminated.

    Like many others have posted, I'm tired of having to deal with the problems from maintaining 2gb user mailbox quotas because employees are too incompetent to realize that when management tells me that *I* have to do more with less, that means I'm going to be passing all those efficiency creating decisions off on the largest scale possible, which is usually the entire company. If I'm forced to tighten my belt, the people using the systems I administer will be doing their part to assist, whining be damned.

    --
    Protector of Capitalist views,
    Meorah
  60. Horrible policy by agpc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an attorney who practices e-discovery, I can tell you that any company which implements the policy described above better hope to god they never find themselves embroiled in multi-state class action litigation. Sooner or later, they will run into a judge who views the destruction of evidence for the express purpose of avoiding liability as a bad thing and they will lose the case. A policy designed to protect the company from litigious plaintiffs will have the opposite result and create huge awards for the plaintiffs. If you work for a large company which has been sued in major litigation, you should probably assume that all of your e-mails will be read by an attorney at some point and write your e-mails accordingly.

    1. Re:Horrible policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an attorney who practices e-discovery, I can tell you that any company which implements the policy described above better hope to god they never find themselves embroiled in multi-state class action litigation. Sooner or later, they will run into a judge who views the destruction of evidence for the express purpose of avoiding liability as a bad thing and they will lose the case.

      Really? That goes directly against the SOX rules. No judge says your company needs to keep every single communication your company has ever sent/received in perpetuity.

      Storage may be getting cheaper all the time, but it isn't free.

      A reasonable document destruction policy, consistently applied, is perfectly legal.

      Example: tax records & receipts need to be kept for a certain period of time set by the IRS. After that, you certainly can keep them, but it is perfectly legal to destroy them.

      A policy designed to protect the company from litigious plaintiffs will have the opposite result and create huge awards for the plaintiffs.

      That's speculation. On the other hand, there have been many ridiculous product liability cases where a 5-year old email talking about a one in a million chance where a complete idiot does something moronic coming back to bite you in the ass.

      Go and read www.overlawyered.com for many concrete examples.

      If you work for a large company which has been sued in major litigation, you should probably assume that all of your e-mails will be read by an attorney at some point and write your e-mails accordingly.

      Or, if the emails no longer exist...

    2. Re:Horrible policy by Bunderfeld · · Score: 1

      Actually, if a Private Company puts in place a retention policy, that also includes a policy concerning who owns the emails (the company most of the time), then the judge in any jurisdiction should be happy if the Company can show the policy and that it is strictly enforced.

      This doesn't mean the judge won't order the IT Dept. to search for any emails dealing with whatever the company is in litigation for, but it also means the IT Dept. doesn't have to lose a bunch of hours doing work for other lawyers. Just provide the lawyers with copies of whatever backup tapes you have and say, "Here you go, this is all we have".

      The problem with this is, most private companies also like to do yearly backups that contain all emails that went and came for the last year, which of course, is usually against their own Retention Policy, but some bosses just have to have their cake and eat it to.

    3. Re:Horrible policy by agpc · · Score: 1

      You appear to be confusing the legality of a retention policy with the real world outcome of implementing such a policy. Let me make it simple. Despite what overlawyered.com says, if a judge perceives that a defendant destroyed discoverable evidence in order to reduce legal liability, the defendant is is screwed. The judge might render a death penalty discovery sanction. A pissed off judge might decide to rule against every objection, pleading, or motion the defendant makes throughout the rest of the trial. The judge might instruct the jury to assume that the destruction or omission of certain evidence is a direct admission that the defendant is liable. In essence, the attempt to control information to save money is likely to lead to less control than would have existed had the you-must-delete-e-mails-after-180-days retention policy never been implemented in the first place. The first rule of litigation is don't piss off the judge.

    4. Re:Horrible policy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Emails are not evidence, until they have been submitted as such.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    5. Re:Horrible policy by agpc · · Score: 1

      Semantics. Substitute the word "documents" for "evidence" if it bothers you that much. Either way, if your argument is "sorry judge, we can't produce all those relevant e-mails you wanted us to produce because they no longer exist" then you might as well just write a check to the other side.

    6. Re:Horrible policy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      But the emails don't exist so you cannot be done for tampering with evidence.

      A judge cannot simply rule in favor of the other party because he/she makes an impossible request.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    7. Re:Horrible policy by magusnet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One reason companies implement retention policies is to reduce the "e-discovery" costs. A 12-36 month retention does not mean a company is try to hide anything. It just means they don't want to pay $1,000-$10,000 per Gigabyte of data that has to be examined for inclusion and exclusion in the lawsuit. The discovery phase costs of a lawsuit can financially cripple a company event if they are innocent. Peoples uneducated responses on this topic that "they must be guilty if they're deleting emails" are about as valid as the Bush administration's claims that only criminals and terrorists should be concerned about wire tapping.

    8. Re:Horrible policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A judge cannot simply rule in favor of the other party because he/she makes an impossible request.

      A judge can, and should, assume that any documents deliberately destroyed by one party were the worst possible case for that party. This applies to any document. "Deliberately" is the interesting case. If you destroy it becuase you don't have space that's okay. If you show that you regularly destroy documents through lack of space, the judge will normally accept that it wasn't "deliberate" destruction unless here is other evidence. In this case there is a policy of destruction "to limit the organization's exposure to legal risk". That could be used as evidence to persuade the judget that the destruction was "deliberate".

      That's why blanking your computer normally is a good idea, but when the RIAA contact you it becomes a bad idea.

    9. Re:Horrible policy by kanweg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "A pissed off judge might decide to rule against every objection, pleading, or motion the defendant makes throughout the rest of the trial. "

      Must be fun to live in a country with such a legal system.

      Bert

    10. Re:Horrible policy by Degrees · · Score: 1

      You aren't familiar with the concept of a Litigation Hold, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Once served with a Litigation Hold letter, you must preserve the email associated with the incident, regardless if your email retention policy would have the the email deleted. "We were just following our email deletion policy" = purposefully gave the finger to the court that said "keep those emails".

      Furthermore, FRCP says that if you even think you are going to need the emails, you must keep them - regardless of your email retention policy. For example, an employee (on in my case, an inmate) dies, all email about the incident that lead to death must be retained, even if the policy is to delete all email after 180 days. The fact that a death happened is reason enough to assume that a lawsuit will happen. I'm working on an e-discovery right now that took four years to get to the discovery phase. Following policy of "we delete after 180 days, no matter what the court wants" is willful negligence.

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    11. Re:Horrible policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its doesn't have to be tampering with evidence for a judge to decide the company has stepped beyond reasonable retention policies. Its a crap shoot to try and predict what a judge will do, especially in very large class action cases. If he instructs the jury to assume that the omission of e-mails constitutes an admission of liability by the defendant, it won't matter. Defendant will lose, jury will likely award a huge sum of money.

      Also, even if the e-mails no longer exist - which is highly unlikely given how difficult it is to delete e-mails from every recipient's computer - it usually won't matter. All it takes is one disgruntled employee to testify that "Yes, we had the e-mails. Yes, my company instructed me to delete them because they were fearful they might hurt the company in court" and you will have a very angry judge.

    12. Re:Horrible policy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      So the trick is to delete the emails before being served with the hold letter/notice?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    13. Re:Horrible policy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      That's why blanking your computer normally is a good idea, but when the RIAA contact you it becomes a bad idea.

      Thats where whole-disk encryption comes in handy, personally I would just give them the disk from my other computer :)

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    14. Re:Horrible policy by Degrees · · Score: 1

      The courts are full of verdicts against people who thought that trickery was a good idea.

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    15. Re:Horrible policy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      How is it trickery?

      Im constantly deleting emails I do not have an infinate budget, data retention is very expensive. I recently deleted over 4.5 gigs worth of email.

      Is it now a crime dor me to delete data I own?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    16. Re:Horrible policy by Degrees · · Score: 1

      You have to be able to answer the question: can you reasonably be expected to know that the email was (would have been) evidence?

      If the answer is yes, then deleting the email anyway (using the retention policy as an excuse) is willful destruction of evidence. If the answer is no, then feel free to delete away.

      If your company is defrauding customers or vendors, then you better keep your email. If a customer or vendor sends you an email saying they are going to sue, then you better keep your email. If a contract is for an enormously large amount of money, then you better keep your email. If a person dies because of a malfunction of your product or service, then you better keep your email.

      It may or may not be a crime to delete your incident-related-email. But if it's obvious that there was a likelihood that you will end up in court, and you try to pull a trick and delete your email, then don't whine about how unfair the system is when you lose the case because you willfully destroyed evidence.

      Obviously, if you end up in this sort of trouble, the question is going to boil down to: "So, Dan541, you admit deleted your email to and from PersonXXX. You also admit that the relationship (business or otherwise) between you and PersonXXX was destined for trouble. How can you say your deletion of email met the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?"

      That's the gist of it: does your argument on why you deleted evidence hold up?

      If PersonXXX counters with "Dan541 deleted the email because it would be incriminating", then you lose. At least under FRCP, you lose.

      Unless you didn't delete the email, and the email was not incriminating.

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    17. Re:Horrible policy by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if you end up in this sort of trouble, the question is going to boil down to: "So, Dan541, you admit deleted your email to and from PersonXXX. You also admit that the relationship (business or otherwise) between you and PersonXXX was destined for trouble. How can you say your deletion of email met the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?"

      "In order to control the cost of storage and backup, our company instituted an email retention policy where all email is retained for precisely 180 days. We do not examine the contents of each email that is deleted after 180 days, so we could not have possibly known that deleted email would be the subject of legal action. Obviously we suspended our automatic deletion process once we were made aware of this litigation so as not to inadvertently purge discoverable evidence."

      Personally, I think such an explanation would carry more weight if the retention time were greater than 180 days. What constitutes a reasonable retention time probably varies by industry, but 6 months sounds awfully short.

      As it turns out, I'm in an industry that has conflicting rules/guidance on retention times. As a landlord, I maintain private information on individuals, and I am supposed to purge that after it is no longer needed (so I don't accidentally release it). On the other hand, if I were subject to a Fair Housing claim, I would need all rental applications and scoring to prove that I do not discriminate against any protected class. My policy is to retain all applications since I might be subject to a future Fair Housing claim, and those applications would then be needed for discovery/defense.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    18. Re:Horrible policy by Degrees · · Score: 1

      I think you got it right. If you have a policy, and you suspend that policy after getting a litigation hold letter, the court won't look at you as if you were purposefully deleting evidence. The catch with FRCP (as I understand what our legal department told me) is that even if you don't get a litigation hold letter, but a lawsuit is obvious, you still need to keep the data. A perfect example would be if you had two applicants for a unit, and you chose one over the other. If you have messages to/from both applicants, and the person who lost immediately sends you an email stating they are 'a protected class, and you have no right to deny me a rental' - it is reasonable to expect trouble. Whether or not your 180 day rule lets you delete the mail, the court will look upon you more kindly if you kept the email than if you didn't.

      I'm in government, and yes, 180 days seems too short to me, too. You know how there is no statute of limitations on murder? That means email needs to be kept literally "forever" (if the email contains important data in reference to the unsolved murder case). Oy.

      It's probably worth noting that I'm having to operate in the federal civil court area. I'm told that the judges in the upper courts don't excuse behavior just because a policy allows it. If your case makes it up to federal civil court, then those judges will expect you to produce - and if you don't, then you weren't interested in winning your case after all (no excuses).

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    19. Re:Horrible policy by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      A perfect example would be if you had two applicants for a unit, and you chose one over the other. If you have messages to/from both applicants, and the person who lost immediately sends you an email stating they are 'a protected class, and you have no right to deny me a rental' - it is reasonable to expect trouble.

      I get that all the time. First of all, it's not true (not that you'd need to know this, but whatever). The law only says that I cannot reject an applicant specifically because he/she is a member of a protected class. It says nothing about that I cannot reject a protected class member--everybody's in a protected class because "sex" is a protected class.

      My written policy says: "For everyone's protection, all requests for application scoring much be submitted in writing to the PO Box." This is for two reasons:
      1. It takes no effort to yell over the phone, but submitting a request in writing takes 2 minutes' effort. People who tend to feel discriminated against tend to... well... if they were putting forth effort and succeeding in life, they wouldn't have to blame others for their problems. Indeed, in all my years of landlording, nobody has ever submitted a request in writing to the PO box for any item that my policy requires.

      2. It creates a paper trail. If someone wants to sue me, fine. But there will be no "he said, she said" arguments over a phone conversation because as soon as someone gives any indication that he/she wants to sue me, I give the PO box address and hang up the phone.

      If your case makes it up to federal civil court, then those judges will expect you to produce - and if you don't, then you weren't interested in winning your case after all (no excuses).

      Fortunately, I don't get sued all that much, and have never had a fair housing claim. I really doubt a typical landlord/tenant issue would make to to federal court, but I guess stranger things have happened. Some people really want their damn security deposit back, no matter how badly they've damaged the unit.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    20. Re:Horrible policy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Problem is that Emails are not evidence as I am not currently under any court proceedings.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    21. Re:Horrible policy by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      If I suspect that an email could be used againsed me I am legally required to keep it?

      I find this to be an intresting concept.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    22. Re:Horrible policy by Degrees · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if you suspect that an email could be used against you, you don't have to keep it. But consider that when it comes down to it, the judge has to decide between "you said, they said". If the plaintiff says you promised them $10,000 to resolve a problem, when really you said that you'd make good with a $5,000 credit on their bill with provisions that they accept the deal 'as-is', the lack of email evidence will probably hurt you. If your defense is "I deleted all my email because I thought it would make me look bad" - Magic 8 Ball says "Outlook not so good". ;-).

      Obviously, you would say your email retention policy is the reason you deleted the email, but what's the difference? From the judge's point of view, if you were interested in the truthful representation of business between yourself and your business partners, you would have kept the email.

      I know it's off-topic, but consider Hans Reiser's case. If, immediately after killing his wife, he went with his lawyer and turned himself in, after pleading guilty, he would probably have been sentenced to 8-10 years for manslaughter (a crime of passion). But because he hid the evidence, he was sentenced to life in prison for murder. This was a criminal case, instead of a civil case, but disposing of evidence never makes the court happy.

      You can take the chance that deleting the email will help you. But FRCP declares that the judge is fully correct to assume that the reason you deleted the email is because it incriminated you.

      Essentially, FRCP doesn't care that email storage costs money. In small quantities, the cost is negligible. In large quantities, email storage is a cost of doing business. Records are records, and you are expected to keep them. You can take the gamble that shredding your records is a good idea - but I think it's a terrible bet to make.

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
  61. I find it all rather interesting, really .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First, companies wanted to (generally) make a big deal out of the idea that your email send/received in the workplace didn't really belong to you. It was COMPANY property, because you were using their hardware, bandwidth, and company time to write any outgoing messages.

    But all of a sudden, they're expressing legal concerns that shouldn't even have come about if the mail was recognized as belonging to its recipients, vs. being of corporate-ownership.

    (EG. You couldn't very well demand to view all the mail on a server to investigate something. You'd have to get permission to search the mail of each individual employee you believed was involved directly in whatever you were suing over, and you'd have to justify the intrusion into their privacy.)

  62. How About Not Screwing Anybody Over? by bratwiz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What do Slashdot readers suggest for a large company that needs to balance legal risks against the daily information and communication needs of its staff?"

    How about not doing anything illegal, immoral or questionable in the first place. Then you wouldn't have to cover anything up 180 days later.

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:How About Not Screwing Anybody Over? by bratwiz · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is not a troll. It is a perfectly legitimate response to the post.

      Whoever modded it a troll-- go fuck yourself.

  63. It's the CONTENT that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that you have to mentally divorce the content from the channel. Emails with good content should be retained just like documents with good content -- and there's no reason why you should have to "digest" emails into documents just for the purpose of retaining them.

    Emails fall into the standard "three R's" of record keeping. An email can be:

    1. Records
    2. Reference
    3. Rubbish ...and you only need to keep the Records.

    So, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff? That's where an EDRMS (Electronic Document & Records Management System) comes into play.

    As an example, let's take a piece of Official Correspondence. You receive a request (be it email or a scanned-in letter, etc.). You then email a bunch of people to see how to respond to the request, and get all sorts of neat ideas. You then draft up a response, get some feedback, and then send out a final response.

    Using an EDRMS, you can capture all of the above (Request, emails, drafts, response) in a single Correspondence Item.

    This model of storing content "in context" with like content (to make a full story) can be applied to projects, policy-making, administration, ... pretty much everything.

    Now that you have captured your record-worthy emails, the next step is disposal scheduling. Some records will need to be retained forever (e.g., outgoing CEO emails discussing policy); however, most will have shorter retention periods -- again depending on their CONTENT. (The organisations record keeping policy should cover retention periods.)

    The content also drives the security. For example, a complaint about my manager to HR containing detailed examples of incompetence should be a record, but should not be viewable by everyone with access to the EDRMS.

    What you do with your remaining emails (i.e., the reference and rubbish) is up to you, as there are no legal requirements to retain them for the long-term. ...at least that's what we do at my house...

  64. Go back to square one by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    You're a Microsoft shop, using Outlook and Exchange. Setting up a sane retention policy on top of that is nightmarish, especially for people whose business memory is stored in email. Data security isn't just protectng yourself from lawsuit issues, it also involves protecting your users from storage failures and database corruption. Exchange is notorious for these issues, and throwing more money and hardware and failover equipment at it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of corruption of years of work in the massive, massive files used by Exchange's storage mechanism.

    If this is a big issue for you, switch immediately to a sane, IMAP based system that allows individual message storage and the application of external message management systems to ease backup, recovery, and organization of the material by the users. The PST files are an incredibly nasty way to store large, diverse filesets such as email. I've seen them imperil access and recover far too often.

    1. Re:Go back to square one by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Exchange is, in fact, not notorious for either of the issues the parent post would have you believe. I have five years of Exchange data which has never been corrupted. The company I currently work for has over 10 years with no issues. In fact, I've never met anyone who has ever had an issue with "database corruption" or "storage failures".

      Yo can also find quite a few very good plug-ins for Exchange which will allow individual message storage and the application of external message management systems to ease backup, recovery, and organization of the material by the users, which is a bit of a plus.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    2. Re:Go back to square one by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Your experience seriously does not match mine. I've watched the explosions happen, at close range, at least 4 times in the last 5 years, to the major corporate email servers.

      Many of the issues have centered on failure, or unwillingness, to maintain mail quotas or spare space for big email bursts and the resulting debris blown across multiple user email accounts. Other issues have been live failover routines, which have twice corrupted both systems and forced restoration from what turned out to be ineffective previous backups.

      And Exchange plugins are notoriously unwieldy and unreliable, as well. Forcing the users to do email backup is just begging for pain in a corporate environment. Email is one of the most critical systems to manage, and it should just work. Errors should be small and easy to address, rather than scattering across so many users. This is precisely the correct behavior I see with IMAP: if they got the message, it's marked so, and it's easy to backup and replicate to other mail servers.

  65. One word by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

    Printscreen.

  66. Good luck with that. by Shandalar · · Score: 1

    Your process would require about double the amount of time taken in the writing and responding to the original e-mails. Impractical.

  67. Solution! by areusche · · Score: 1

    Set Outlook to automatically forward messages to Gmail!

  68. what a bunch of crappy responses by mordred99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am sorry as hell to put it like this but I have seen basically 80% of the responses stating that you should break the policy, ignore the policy, inane comments like "dont work for criminals" or that the legal team is stupid.
    Okay - having implemented one of these from being someone on a cyber security team, I know first hand what goes on behind the scenes and everything that goes on. Our company implemented one of these projects. 180 day retention for USER email boxes. If you need to keep something for retention purposes, you have a DL setup which does not have the same rules and a few team members have access to. Simple. If you need it after six months, every desktop has a PDF writer (free cute PDF) and they can print it and save it.
    Now .. from a personal perspective, Hell yeah I did not like it, I like to have all the emails I sent so I know I told my boss 8 months ago to go fly a kite or something about a topic and when he confronts me to say I did not warn him about something. Tough .. Those that make more than I made the decision and we have to implement it.
    So at my company - just so you know. All .exe files are listed in the host firewall and if you run one that is not approved, then cyber security pays you a visit. Everyone has approved software, and thunderbird, eudora, what ever are not approved. Since we only have IE, it is managed through AD to be forced through a proxy which does not allow any of the webmail sites. Why you ask? Well lets see - we have now fired four people since I have been with the company for sending private company info via webmail accounts to other customers to give them more money, etc.
    So lets see, what else. Oh yes, all emails are scanned incoming and going out to validate compliance to corporate policies. So no "autoforward" rules in outlook to forward any mail you get to your gmail account (as well as all popular web and ISP accounts are blocked). Our company takes it as it is a place of business, not a place to deal with external distractions. You can call someone if you want to talk to them - just don't email them.
    So why do you ask why we go to these extremes. We have to. Government regulations on our business. Several people have access to information that requires government clearances, and we get bent over a barrel when any of that goes out the door. Does it work? Yes. Do people like it? Well they have gotten used to it (we implemented it 4 years ago). The VP with 9Gb of mail was pretty pissed for a while, but realized his life was much easier.
    Just to let you know - for those of your pansies saying to let it all go free and don't work for criminals, etc. A company is never the criminal, it is the people in the company that are the criminals. So restricting the people that are potential criminals removes that temptation and will allow you to do your job more effectively.
    Last point, I know the next logical point most people bring up in this argument, which is hire better people if we are firing people that have done things wrong. Every person before they get hired has a criminal background check and over 80% of our company had at least "classified" level government clearance. So, the government trusts them, as well as they had the skills to get into the job, and the temperament to get along with the people at the company. They were still fired for doing something like selling one companies info, to another, even with all the things in place.
    You cannot change human behavior, but you can try to circumvent it so that it is an overt act and then it is something they willingly did, and then you can throw the book at them for doing it because it was pre-meditated.

  69. Is it even legal to destroy e-mail? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I am not an attorney but in a past life I was a computer consultant who did e-discovery for litigation plaintiffs attorneys. Although not in the field, its become my understanding that as of late it is actually required under recent Federal rules to retain your e-mail.

    --
    This is my sig.
  70. Public Offices Are Forced to Keep Emails by Bunderfeld · · Score: 1

    I last worked for a Local City structure, and we had a very aggressive retention policy.

    Everyone except management or higher, were to keep only 10 days worth of email in their inboxes, but we did allow people to move important emails into other folders for safe-keeping.

    Management and higher officials, were required to save 30 days worth of email in their inboxes, but they could also put emails into other folders for safe-keeping.

    The IT Dept., was required to do NIGHTLY backups, and send off-site the Friday Tapes, which would be kept at a undisclosed location by a private firm would that would keep 3 months of backups.

    We also would keep a quarterly tape for each quarter so we could always recover emails from each quarter, and finally, a yearly backup, made from the quaterly tapes, so yes, we would have a complete years worth of emails for everyone. We were too keep the yearly email backups for eternity I think.

    This was a pain in the a** to put all together and keep track of, but it also ensured we would be ready for ANY Public Records request that came our way, and they did about every week.

    It's a lot different in the private sector, where you don't have to answer to Public Records Requests.

  71. Filter+Forward by lewp · · Score: 1

    Can you just set up filters for any messages you want to save for more than 180 days, then forward them to an address you use to archive them? There are lots of emails I want to keep for more than 180 days, but not too many I need to respond to after that time, so I wouldn't care if they were actually in Exchange or not.

    Forgive me if there's some kind of group policy that restricts doing something like this, but I've worked at some pretty large orgs and never run into it. I'm sure it runs counter to company policy in lots of places, but you seem to be trying to dodge that anyway.

    For maximum convenience, lots of storage, and minimum privacy, just forward everything to gmail where you can search it.

    --
    Game... blouses.
  72. Imagine you received 100+ emails a day... by caplocktab · · Score: 1

    and that dealing with email can only be a small part of your job, if you want to do your job well. How can you spend the additional time required to make the decision whether to save each new email message? Forget the legality, how the heck could you get any work done? And what psychic powers would be made available so that you would know, in advance, which emails were "important"? I mean, if I had the power to know in advance exactly which communication was going to someday be important, and which was not, then I think I might be able to finagle myself a job where I didn't need to worry about email retention policies.

  73. It is called a mailbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Email is not all that different from old fashioned mail. Certainly, old fashioned mail appears to have changed, but in the days before email it was much like email. As such an email mailbox is not much different from a postage mailbox. Yet people store and organize mail in their mailbox. Could you imagine organizing your postal mail in such a fashion? It would be insane to store and organize bills and such in your mailbox. Much of the design and planning for email follows postal mail's design.

    One problem is that email is electronic and packrats do not see the absurdity of keeping every single email (spam or otherwise). It is very common in corporate environments to see most users will well over 2 Gigs of mail. A person could not possibly need all of that, nor are the systems design to support that. If you follow the concept of mail, a person would insane to save every single postal mail they both send and receive, you would be overwhelmed with paper.

    Just because you can does not mean you should.

    It is out of laziness that people do this. Once the mail builds so high, they refuse to trim it down. There are certainly messages worth saving for long periods, but those should be rare and reduced over time.

    Here is an example of how this store forever philosophy impacts companies. My systems mailbox store is over 50 Gigs for about 100 people (60% of which only have internal email). Ever try to back up 50 Gigs...daily. You cannot use ordinary backup means, which means it is costly. The cost to backup email, the cost to keep email running, and the cost to keep up with need would be greatly reduced if people managed their email.

    There also need to be push back from IT. I worked at a different company that had a 8 GB Exchange IS. I ran a clean up routine that deleted only items in the "Deleted Items" folders that were more than 60 days old. That alone freed up 1.2 GB. Oddly 1 person complained. They actually were using Deleted Items as a storage folder. The only reason it should exist is to recover from an oops. I wanted to delete "Sent Item" items that were more than 2 years old, but my boss wanted to ask lawyers and set policy first. That would have freed several hundred MB. I have also helped abusers by archiving to PST and burning to CD. "Here you go, if you need your junk mail from 5 years ago it's on the CD (and not on my server)."

  74. I explain this stuff to folk daily by djproscribe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The purpose of the policy is to protect the company. This may be from litigation or from the cost of a fishing expedition -- think of the cost of having to pull everyone's every email *from backup*. Discovery permits the lawyers to go through your every backup because there just might be an email in there that proves their case and you might have deleted it.

    If you have a policy that is generally followed that states when emails are deleted, you save yourself a lot of grief. But. You also need to have a process to stop this regular deletion if a court action is started or management has good reason to believe one is coming.

    If you are in an environment where a six month old email saves you serious grief, it may be time to look for another job. I have been there and it always turns ugly. Being able to prove you are not at fault is not the same as proving you are right or to be trusted. Which is a drag, but nonetheless the case.

    A good retention policy balances the business needs for retaining emails (which usually does not take CYA into account), regulations (like SOX and PCI and GLBA), and technology costs and efficiencies. A bad one picks a number out of a hat and flails. If the policy doesn't make sense, you could politely ask whether you could please have an exception. Policies are supposed to include exception processes.

  75. Re:Doesn't belong there. - I disagree by baileydau · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Email != a document repository. If you need to keep something, print as a PDF or store it somewhere more appropriate.

    I disagree.

    Once you remove email from the mail server, you loose quite a bit of it's (informational) value.
        * the header information is lost.
                That includes information like:
                      * when
                      * from who
                      * who else got the email
        * the text and attachments tend to get separated
        * you tend to loose the ability to view the emails in various useful ways.
              eg: threaded view, so you can view an entire 'conversation'
    Any system that doesn't loose this information is effectively a mail server (probably without the ability to send / receive emails), so why bother with another system?

    In my opinion, an email server is the appropriate place to store emails. Anything else is a very poor second best.

    NB. A lot of document management software can search / index you mail server, so it is logically part of your document system. You can sometimes 'import' emails directly into these systems, but that tends to be slow and clunky (last time I tried it, it was), and really doesn't achieve anything useful.

    --
    Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
  76. Absolutely... by raftpeople · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I recently came out of a bankrupt company, e-mail was critical in a variety of cases including disputes with the liquidators, the records saved us many, many dollars.

  77. No intelligence in my company by Johnbd66 · · Score: 2, Funny

    21 day mail retention and a 30 Meg mailbox size. It is great for booking holidays because after the first 21 consecutive days, it doesn't matter how much longer you are gone because the volume of email will never really get that much greater.

  78. A Couple of Ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume you cannot use File -> Import/Export? That lets you send stuff to a PST file. You could also enable cached Exchange mode. That will cause your OST file to contain a copy of the email on the server. Just back that up every 180 days.

  79. Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My honest approach is to get more and more people to cut the "do this" messages out of e-mail and walk their sorry ass down to someone's office. Most people take just as long, or procrastinate in sending, work laidened e-mails.

    I'm to the point as a 2nd rung IT guy that if my boss has something for me there is my open door policy, otherwise don't bitch when an e-mail goes unread.

    Also, I just don't send anything of substance via e-mail any longer. If it has to be said, it is "when are you in your office next?".

    Understandably not ideal for a lot of people, but eventually the liability of e-mail is going to outweigh its usefulness, just like open web browsers are about to.

  80. Storage isn't the issue sometimes by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's IO. If you don't use a database driven e-mail program, large inboxes hit the disk really hard. Thus you need major IO to have large quotas. We have this problem at work currently. We run sendmail for a number of reasons, the main one being that we got e-mail waaaaaaay back in the day when it was pretty much it. Regardless, we are still on it and thus IO is a significant problem in terms of large inbox quotas. We need to move to a database driven solution, but such a move isn't easy and isn't free and thus we are still working on it. So at this point, we have quotas on inboxes not because we can't buy more storage, but because we don't want to overload our NAS.

    1. Re:Storage isn't the issue sometimes by truesaer · · Score: 1

      Clearly it wasn't that big of a problem, as they now store all my email back 5 years (we were required to provide all our PSTs to IT to be integrated back in for data retention). They managed to put a system in place in just a few weeks when push came to shove.

      Anyway, isn't exchange database driven? (which is what we were using all along)

    2. Re:Storage isn't the issue sometimes by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Exchange is database driven. I wasn't saying that this was necessarily the problem in your case, just another possibility. We periodical get people complaining about our quotas (which are for inboxes only) because disks are so cheap. We have to explain it isn't space that's the problem, but IO bandwidth and that to either get more bandwidth or a database driven system requires a budget we have not been given at this point.

    3. Re:Storage isn't the issue sometimes by dodobh · · Score: 1

      As a large scale mail admin, let me give you a hint: Databases are not good email stores. You more likely want maildir format for your message store.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  81. Retention policies are good by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

    Because they keep the idiots in line who don't know how to manage e-mail inboxes, and think they need a fucking email from 7 years ago that's just a damn out of office reply, and end up with 12 gig PST files, and then they bitch at IT when their e-mail runs like shit. In case you couldn't tell, this is the bullshit I deal with on a daily basis. But not for long.

    We're switching to Exchange, and are going to have a 1GB limit with a 50MB cap on the named folders (Inbox, Sent, Deleted, etc...because it slows everything down when they get big). We're also getting a document management system that integrates pretty seamlessly with Outlook, for them to send stuff they need. Oh, the most effective restriction when their e-mail hits the cap...don't allow them to send anything :-) That way they don't lose any e-mails, but they get it down to size in one hell of a hurry.

    Restricting by dates is pretty annoying. There are some things you will need to reference again, especically in our organization where our products are usually purchased anually (Awards/Trophies/Plaques). But keeping a size limit is very reasonable, especially with an easy-to-use archiving solution.

    --
    As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    1. Re:Retention policies are good by davidgay · · Score: 1

      Or, to summarise your post, retention policies are necessary because of crappy email servers and clients. Why on earth should a modern computer slow down to a crawl handling a few 1000/10000 items?

    2. Re:Retention policies are good by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, you misunderstand - retention policies are necessary because of crappy email users!

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  82. This might help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not entirely sure of obligations(legal etc.) but here is a product that might just help you: Mail Manager

    Disc: I work there.

  83. Easy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy enough - setup a rule to forward a copy of each email in and out to your gmail account, and then perm-delete it from your sent items...sure, they can recover from the backups, etc...but if nothing else, least you have copies of all email...

  84. Re:Look !! This is not NEWS !! by cheater512 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm a fan of keeping every email.

    I've got everything since October 2003.

  85. Many thoughts come to mind by JimToo · · Score: 1

    How different is the email from a phone call? For one thing, the other business you are dealing with will have a copy, do you want them to have the only copy? Personally I run an empty inbox (actually an empty PST file would be more accurate). I forward to a procmail robot on a file server which permanently archives to the job folder. If I really wanted to keep something though, I'd print to a pdf creator (one that looks like a windows printer). Seems the nicest way to minimise the workload and to maximise the continuity of appearance.

  86. How it works by agpc · · Score: 1

    One thing you tech folks probably already realize - it is very difficult to permanently delete e-mails. Sure, if they are sent between two people, its not so hard. Most e-mails, however, have multiple recipients, cc:, blind cc:, ect... The only way to really complete this task would be formatting the hard drives or storage media of every computer which touched the e-mail. Good luck in that endeavor. If the e-mails which were erased have relevant discoverable information, god help the company that "destroys" that evidence. This applies more to larger companies where more custodians exist (anyone whose computer contains relevant documents).

  87. 180 days? Try 30 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    our email retention policy is 30 days, and drives are searched for exported files.

  88. Your own email's don't exhonerate you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Generally, your own emails will never exhonerate you. This is because they are under your control, so even if you write something like "and please make you do your _best_ to make the ferabulator safe" in an email, the people suing you will just claim it's a trick and point to other evidence. On the other hand, it's very difficult for you to disclaim your own emails which work against you.

  89. An example: Ant poison by nbauman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's an example.

    A company made ant poision, but the federal regulatory agency made them take it off the market.

    Their law firm recommended that they appeal the agency's decision in court, so they did. They lost. The law firm recommended that they appeal to a higher court, so they did. They lost. The law firm recommended that they appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The company sent a fax telling the law firm not to do it. The law firm appealed to the Supreme Court anyway. They lost.

    Doing that, they ran up bills of $400,000. The ant poison company refused to pay. The law firm sued for the bill.

    To prove their case, the company had to find the fax machine's printed confirmation, to prove they sent the fax. They couldn't find it. They lost. They had to pay the law firm.

    (This is my quick recollection from a Wall Street Journal story.)

    Admittedly this is about a fax, not an email, but the principle should be the same. If they had a copy of an email saying, "To confirm our conversation today, we don't want you to appeal any farther," they would have won the case.

    So yeah, there are some emails you should save forever, particularly CYA emails.

    1. Re:An example: Ant poison by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If they had a copy of an email saying, "To confirm our conversation today, we don't want you to appeal any farther," they would have won the case.

      Not exactly. Neither fax receipt or a "copy of an email" is any real evidence of anything. Anyone with half a brain can make a perfect fake.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:An example: Ant poison by Animaether · · Score: 1

      nor does a "sent" e-mail mean a "received" let alone "read and understood" e-mail.

      For anything and everything highly official - use dead trees and signatures.. and then some.

    3. Re:An example: Ant poison by mpe · · Score: 1

      Neither fax receipt or a "copy of an email" is any real evidence of anything. Anyone with half a brain can make a perfect fake.

      Except that in the former case the "perfect fake" would also need to change records of at least one phone company.

    4. Re:An example: Ant poison by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Except that in the former case the "perfect fake" would also need to change records of at least one phone company.

      Maybe the NSA has a copy of the fax, but the phone company should only have a record of the sending and receiving numbers, not what was actually sent.

  90. forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hire people with character and stop doing crooked shit. I think such communication should be kept forever. It's a record of the truth, after all.

  91. Sounds like a bad policy to me by TheLink · · Score: 2, Informative

    How many cases have there been where email evidence was used out of context or misinterpreted by the courts/jury so that the innocent got hurt?

    How many cases have there been where email evidence was used to nail the guilty bastards?

    So tell me, is it really a good thing for emails to be deleted?

    What does it tell you about the company? It has lots of guilty bastards? Do you want to continue working in such a company? They could blame _YOU_ for something and if you're innocent where's the evidence to protect you? If you're keeping your evidence against company policy have a nice day ;).

    As for personal emails, I try to keep most personal emails. Hard disk space is cheap, so why bother taking the time to figure out whether an email is important or not?

    You might not even want to bother deleting spam - some people keep a store of spam so that they can test/tune antispam systems/filters.

    Lastly, I think many people do work with projects that last more than 6 months. Sometimes your memory might fail, sometimes your boss's memory might fail, sometimes your colleagues forget.

    And sometimes when people ask the same questions it's convenient to just dig out the reply/explanation and resend it (email programs should have a decent and fast search - kmail is too slow). If it keeps happening maybe you put it in a FAQ somewhere and then you might add a link to it ;).

    --
    1. Re:Sounds like a bad policy to me by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Hard disk space is cheap, ..."

      no it is not. In a corporation, hard disks space is expensive. The hard disk company is cheap, but that hasn't been the biggest cost for 20 years.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Sounds like a bad policy to me by dbIII · · Score: 1
      True but it is not worth feeding the trolls.

      The argument rarely matters with this guy he just wants people to click on his practical joke link.

  92. Kept for 7 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for an engineering firm in Australia, and our policy is to keep ALL emails for 7 years, with no exceptions.

    The only people that can search back through the archives are the owner of the mailbox, and IT.

    We get requests from HR from time to time, little else to do but follow their direction.

  93. At my retarded company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they delete all emails after 90 days only.

    Often this means that emails are deleted faster than projects complete; it's really not fun.

  94. what e-mail isn't by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Frankly, examine your work-processes. E-Mail is not a general filing system, or a task-management system, or anything else that would require you to keep stuff around forever. In fact, doing so is - according to my observation - the #1 reason why most people can't use mail productively.

    A tiny fraction of mails actually needs to be kept around for a long time, and I have a folder for those. It's on the order of 0.01% of the total volume. If I had to export that in some format, be it word, .txt or whatever, it would be a tiny hassle.

    For everything else, I'd be happy to get the stuff I haven't needed for the past six months automatically deleted, because the chance is 99.99% that I won't need it anymore, anyways, and looking through the pile to check for things that I might still need takes away my valuable time.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  95. Autonomy ZANTAZ by gustavjacob · · Score: 1

    http://www.zantaz.com/ "The spectrum of Autonomy ZANTAZ solutions includes: Aungate Real-Time Policy which monitors information in place and applies policies by understanding the meaning and context of information; ZANTAZ Enterprise Archive Solution (EAS), the first of its kind, combining all information sources into a single, massively scalable archive; Aungate Investigator & Early Case Assessment (ECA) applying advanced analytics to determine the merits of a case prior to eDiscovery; Introspect, redefining EDD, review and production by allowing rapid eDiscovery to be run seamlessly across all information sources including operational systems and archives."

  96. Re:Look !! This is not NEWS !! by tonytraductor · · Score: 1

    Forward the mails to a gmail account (lotso st0rage) for the sole purpose of archiving them?? (probably just copy/paste to text files is simpler).

  97. start selling to lawyers by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    If only all lawyers bought the webelfetzer and took a shower, the world would be a better place.

    Maybe lawyers will sue all electricity companys because its FACT that it kills.

    Or that all alcohol sales should be banned because it can KILL.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  98. Attachments? by hicksw · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this will encourage the users to send any information of long term importance as attachments, turning the email text into cover letters.

    Assuming you can still send, receive, and save attachments. If you can't even attach, put the document on a shared folder and put a link in the email.

    Then email retention could be reduced to something like 48 hours after reading.

  99. Re:Look !! This is not NEWS !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that policy they were talking about will probably dis-able cut&paste over the surface of your eMail

    as far as text eMail goes, I'd second your motion if we could just get eMail programmers to handle text properly: discard and single CR-LF sequences and treat multiple CR-LF sequences as paragraph break.

    I've been very happy to see HTML become the standard for eMail now, except -- I don't like getting messages that look like they are written in crayon or that have some much glitter they look like bad advertising

  100. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  101. Use FileNet Email Manager by FredinBoston · · Score: 1

    Hi. Use a product like FileNet Email Manager. Note that this is *NOT* and archive tool...it's a management tool that is designed to store/save your IMPORTANT emails and not the junk like "hey let's do lunch" emails. Using a tool like this IN ADDITION to your 180 day Nuke policy is great...Email Manager saves all the important emails and your 180-day policy nukes all the junk ones. It's a great tool and works with Exchange. http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/content-management/filenet-email-manager/features.html?S_CMP=rnav Enjoy! -Fred

  102. The unofficial email backup policy by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not unreasonable in such a litigious society.

    In a litigious society, wouldn't it be best to save all of your email, so you can use it to protect yourself in court?

    If you're deleting all your email, then the only evidence that will come out in court will be from the people suing you.

    Many times the most damning evidence is your own email. ( "Fred, the folks in accounting say that delays in production will cost more than the wrongful death lawsuits. So forget about re-designing the gas tank." ) Your own email can be used to prove things like knowledge and intent, which can greatly increase your liability.

    The best way is to have an official policy that email is deleted as soon as is reasonable, probably just a few months. But have an unofficial policy that all email is saved forever.
    One guy buys disks with cash and makes copies after hours and stores them off site. ( This guy is probably a corporate officer with lots of stock options. )

    Then, when you are sued, you can have your lawyer look at the email and decide if it helps your cause or hurts it. If it hurts, you destroy the disks - which is easy since they never officially existed. If it helps, you 'accidentally' find an old disk that someone 'forgot' to destroy.

    1. Re:The unofficial email backup policy by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      So, you advocate a strategy where the IT guys are forced to lie under oath about what discoverable data exists in company archives? Not smart.

      If I were tasked with implementing such a buck-passing and potentially illegal policy, I'd head straight for the Board of Directors to try to fix the obvious defects in C-level management. If the board didn't see things my way, well, I'd take a walk and if applicable contact the SEC or other regulatory agency. There are laws which govern records retention for most companies - even privately held firms.

    2. Re:The unofficial email backup policy by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's all in the wording.

      When old email is damning, send email requesting all relevant emails kept under the retention policy for discovery.

      When evidence would be helpful, drop the part about the official retention policy. Both look fully responsive to discovery on paper, but the former hints that unofficial archives are not desired without provably admitting any such archives exist.

    3. Re:The unofficial email backup policy by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      So, you advocate a strategy where the IT guys are forced to lie under oath about what discoverable data exists in company archives?

      No, not at all. That's the whole point in GP of one guy doing it after hours. Nobody else need know about it. So the IT guys can honestly say that to the best of their knowledge and belief, no, your honor, there are no other backups.

      And if some employee does happen to see him doing something at night, and does mention this, he 'admits' to using the company computers for porn. If pressed further on the matter, he ashamedly produces a disk filled with legal porn. "Yes, your honor, I didn't want my wife to know."

      And the one guy who does know will not go to the SEC because - as noted in GP - he holds lots of stock options. The point if that is that he burns his reirement fund if he talks.

      Note that the board of directors never formally tasks anybody with this. One director - over martinis at the local 19th hole - laments in a private conversation to someone in middle management that the board is troubled: they can't decide if they need to change the email policy because things can go wrong either way. Oh, and BTW, we've added another block of a thousand options to your retirement account because we appreciate your loyalty and dedication.

      Lying to governments is a fine art.

    4. Re:The unofficial email backup policy by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      So you need one guy with moderate IT skills, read access to just about everything, and a questionable moral compass. That sounds like an enormous insider security threat to me. Why wouldn't this guy just sell the data to competitors?

    5. Re:The unofficial email backup policy by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      So you need one guy with moderate IT skills, read access to just about everything, and a questionable moral compass. That sounds like an enormous insider security threat to me. Why wouldn't this guy just sell the data to competitors?

      Becuse - as mentioned twice now - the guy is given stock options.
      The way many execs are paid is not just a paycheck, but stock options also. An option is the right to buy/sell a certain number of shares of a certain stock on a certain day for a certain price. In the case of retirement accounts for employees, it is often the right to buy hundreds of thousands or even milions of dollars worth of stock for a nominal dollar or two, during the years or decades following the employee's retirement. Sometimes they are spaced out so that the employee must cash in bit by bit over many years.
      So if the company is worth a bunch during the employee's retirement, he has a retirement. It is a way of buying loyalty.

      If the employee does something that harms the company, he loses money. Lots of it.

    6. Re:The unofficial email backup policy by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      Becuse - as mentioned twice now - the guy is given stock options.

      You're about 5 years late. Stock options have fallen out of favor as a compensation tool. They now generally have to be expensed, and represent little benefit to either the employer ot employee froma tax perspective. These days, large stock option grants are a nothing but a huge "audit me" signal.

      That said, the employee must be REALLY well compensated (with regular taxable stock grants for example), as the market value of what he has is enormous. Such amounts should raise the concerns of any competent auditor.

  103. My policy by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My policy is read the damned email then delete it. If it has something important in it, I put it in my calendar or contacts or I do what the email is requiring to be done. Is that really hard? People who hoard email aren't half as important as they think they are.

    1. Re:My policy by swordfishBob · · Score: 1

      My policy is read the damned email then delete it. If it has something important in it, I put it in my calendar or contacts or I do what the email is requiring to be done. Is that really hard? People who hoard email aren't half as important as they think they are.

      I may not be half as important as you are, but I'd surmise that either:
      - you never correspond on anything that matters beyond a couple of weeks, or
      - you use your calendar as a filing system, and hoard calendar entries like some people hoard email.
      Well, some people use a handwritten "day book" as their record of "everything", which is better than nothing.

      My inbox contains items that are waiting to be resolved, and a few waiting to be filed or deleted (doesn't take long).

      My email folders provide topical grouping, and are indexed by sender, recipient, subject, size & attachments, as well as date. I have several times been glad of it. Most calendars are only indexed by date.

      --
      -- All your bass are below two Hz
  104. Stop Breaking The Law by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    What do Slashdot readers suggest for a large company that needs to balance legal risks against the daily information and communication needs of its staff?

    Here's a completely unrealistic thought: Stop breaking the law. Fire everyone who sends email suggesting that the company break the law.

    I know, I know - no company of any reasonable size can really be expected to not break the law. Well, that either means the laws are too strict, or that hiring scofflaws has become acceptable as long as they bring cashflow in the door, or the competition are all breaking the law and so you have to in order to stay alive. (I'd say it's some of all three) So, tell me: How much effort does your company make to get the laws fixed, or to change the attitude that nothing is wrong if it makes money (aka sociopathy/psychopathy), or to make the competition stop breaking the law? What is your company doing to save our nation from this problem?

    It's not their job? Bullshit. If they want to operate in my nation, share in the staggering abundance that we are capable of achieving, they better goddam well start thinking that advancing the nation is part of their core mission. Show a little respect for the environment that makes it possible for them to operate. I'm not telling them which way to solve the problem, that's for the company to decide - but they can't just abdicate the responsibility. We are losing the nation and it is the fault of this "it's not my problem" attitude. Fuck that.

    OK, I admit it - I'm being a little facetious; but isn't there a bigger problem here than figuring out how to make sure you don't get caught? Isn't there some sense to what I just said? We've got to start somewhere; we're losing it.

    1. Re:Stop Breaking The Law by geekoid · · Score: 1

      He didn't say anything about breaking the law.

      There are legal risks that aren't illegal.
      The risk is in civil form based on some nut jobs opinion.

      "We are losing the nation and it is the fault of this "it's not my problem" attitude. "

      no it's not, the issue is that it is cheaper to operate in other countries. Other countries that have the exact same attitude as American companies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Stop Breaking The Law by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      He didn't say anything about breaking the law.

      There are legal risks that aren't illegal.
      The risk is in civil form based on some nut jobs opinion.

      From my OP:
      "Well, that either means the laws are too strict, or ... How much effort does your company make to get the laws fixed, or ..."

      First, civil law is law, violations of civil law are what result in court judgment to pay restitution, and civil law is what compels you to respond or face summary judgment. Second, see the two quoted statements about how companies that feel our civil laws are screwed up should respond as good citizens.

      Reading comprehension is important when responding to written statements.

  105. Adobe by Insightfill · · Score: 1
    For a functional response to the "ask Slashdot", I'd recommend using the Adobe plugin for Outlook. It can be configured to print an entire folder, complete with breakdowns by date, sender, etc. in the bookmark area. Normally, the program just ticks me off because it screws up toolbars in Word, Outloooke, etc., but it's perfect for this situation. It also remains pretty searchable, as well.

    As for the business case issue, many other posters have it right as well. Be sure this is something you want to do, as it can work for or against you later. If you have any personal email coming in via work, start changing email addresses as well.

  106. Re:Doesn't belong there. - I disagree by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

    You missed the point -- I'm not saying that an email server isn't the appropriate place to store email. I'm saying that email isn't the appropriate place to publish and transfer data that will be needed for a long period of time.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  107. Same exact situation here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    My company set up exactly the same email retention policy about 6 months ago. I either drag/drop the emails into a temp desktop folder until I get time to file them where they need to go. I also set up rules that forward a copy of any incoming AND outgoing mail to a special gmail account, which I then sync to my windows machine at home..I often remote desktop into my machine at home because i know its going to be much faster to search.
    In any case, having old email around saves us 10x more than it would hurt us.

  108. Consistent policy is most important by altnuc · · Score: 1

    One of the problems with e-mail is that employees can have casual conversations about something that can later be taken out of context. For example, two engineers talk about a procedure that is really stupid and doesn't mean anything. Five years later, lawyers perform a "discovery" and find "evidence" that engineers didn't take procedures seriously. Now they can sue. The problem with saving some of your e-mail is that the lawyers can claim that you deleted incriminating e-mail and only saved e-mail that proved your side of the story. The answer to that is have a consistent policy where all e-mail is deleted after some time. 180 days seems awfully short, 1 year seems more appropriate, but I guess it depends on what kind of business you are in.

  109. 180 days is too short - three reasons by 517714 · · Score: 1

    A policy such as this is likely to be interpreted as willful destruction of potential evidence in a jury trial. A purge policy should be (sound like it is) based on storage, not legal issues. If the decision hasn't been run past the lawyers, you should refuse to carry it out on the basis that you are not certain it is legal.

    If I were an supervisor working at the company, giving annual reviews of my subordinates, I would need to be able to access emails to demonstrate their performance. Otherwise it would be hard to give a good raise to my best employees and warnings to my poor performers.

    How often do they intend to do the purges? A shorter retention span necessitates a more frequent purge = greater cost.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  110. Positini? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you looked at Postini? Slick approach and leverages Google's search capabilities. PST's can be both imported and exported and messages deleted on your mail server can be archived indefinitely on Postini. Very handy stuff.

  111. This shows that Responsibility/Accountability pref by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    prefers longer storage, and
    Denial/TeflonDefense ( so long as those judging buy the teflon ) prefers short-purging.

    NOW *my* preference becomes clear!

    ( thx, btw, for giving me this insight :)

  112. 180 Days is not a good Retention Policy by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    Caveat: IANAL, but I used to work as a consultant for a company that helped with retention policies and the like. From what I recall, just deciding to delete all email over 180 days does not comprise a decent retention policy. I believe you are expected to keep all emails that contain data related to the conduct of your business for a reasonable period of time, and sometimes (depending on the industry) for specific periods of time.

    There is a short summary for small businesses here:
    http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_21047.html

    You for sure and certain want to read through the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation if you are in the US:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

    Yes, deleting your email after a fixed period of time and consistently following that practice can be considered an Email Retention policy, but the one point I recall hearing hammered home was that "30/60/90 is not a retention policy" (referring to stages of retaining emails). If I recall correctly the consensus was that email should be retained for varying lengths of time based on the importance of the contents and that some mail should be kept indefinitely depending on legislation and subject matter.

    If you get hit with a lawsuit and during the discovery phase of the trial are unable to produce critical email because you had a policy of just deleting it after X days, the Judge may tend to favor the other side on the assumption that you did so deliberately. You should really consult with a legal firm that specializes in crafting suitable retention policies rather than just adopting a blanket policy like that. In my unqualified opinion, just adopting a blanket policy of deleting all email content, regardless of content, after X days might imply to a judge that your company really didn't give it adequate thought and the relatively short period might imply that you thought email might contain incriminating content you preferred to hide. Remember that the company who sues you will most likely retain those emails longer than you, giving the impression you were nervous about the email's content when you deleted it.

    If a company corresponds with another company via email, and in the course of doing so uses an email message to reach a business agreement, that email is I believe considered a legal document. If you go ahead and do the work but are unable to produce the agreement to do so down the road, you might end up unpaid at the least. If things go badly you might end up liable for damages etc. Business email should not be casually deleted. Your retention policy should, I believe, differentiate between unimportant email that doesn't deal with business matters, moderately important stuff that you might want to retain, and important correspondence that you will want to keep until long after its relevant.

    Here is the company I was associated with. I am sure they are not the only ones you can talk to, but they might be a good place to start:

    http://www.cohasset.com/

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:180 Days is not a good Retention Policy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who makes a living consulting for email retention.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:180 Days is not a good Retention Policy by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Actually I was just developing a pair of websites for them and I have no stake in what they do for a living, nor in how they do it. I merely picked up some of the information as a result of posting content into the pages and designing the website. I am no longer associated with the company in any way and will not make any financial gain, nor do I expect to ever work for them again. I was merely trying to be helpful :P

      I do not work consulting in this area, and am currently employed full time elsewhere developing a private school intranet.

      Thanks for interpreting my comments as being entirely self-centered, and in my own personal interest etc. I often forget that on the internet everyone assumes you are an ass automatically.

      Read up on Discovery disasters as related to email though and see how many companies ended up paying massive fines or losing cases because they chose poorly when deciding how to deal with email, and you might realize my intentions were well meaning. If the OPs company goes ahead with their intended retention policy, it will stand a good chance of biting them in the butt someday and could potentially cost them millions (if for instance a Judge decides a particular email is extremly important to a case and decides that he/she should grant the request to have *all* the company computers seized so they can be searched for the missing email content, and the OP's company's expense).

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  113. Backing up workstations is avoidable and stupid by kullnd · · Score: 1

    It's hard enough to ensure that your servers get backed up, I manage multiple corperate networks and I don't backup any of the workstations on any of them. None of my network users have the ability to view the local hard drives, they can't save to them, there is no caching on the outlook clients, ALL profile information is not only setup with roaming, but uses folder redirection, I don't have to worry about out of sync systems in regards to roaming profiles and there is never any personal (or company sensitive) information on a computer.

    If a computer malfunctions or starts acting up with this method I can swap it out quickly or just initiate a reload from a stored image on the network. Infact, as a policy, ALL of my workstations are reloaded with a new image once per year to ensure that all workstations are running the current versions of programs and that any fixes are implemented across the whole company.

    I can't imagion having to actually take into consideration what users may have stored locally. Screw that.

    --
    +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
  114. Email Rule #1 by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    Email Rule #1: Never put anything in email that you don't want somebody else's lawyer holding up in court.

    Email retention policies are an attempt to mitigate the damage caused by a violation of Email Rule # 1

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  115. Re:Look !! This is not NEWS !! by ktappe · · Score: 1

    copy and past really isn't all that time consuming

    Actually it kinda is if you consider that the original poster stated that his employer used Exchange. That means he's using Outlook or Entourage as his mail reader (by necessity) and when you cut & paste from those apps you don't get the e-mail headers, only the body text. An archived e-mail without Sender, Date, Subject, and Recipient is nearly useless.

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  116. IMAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your company's servers support IMAP, then you could try out this new service I discovered a few weeks back called YippieMove. It let you copy all emails to Gmail. IT might not like that idea but...

  117. Email as archival medium? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Now that is something new.

    If there is something important in an email you document it somewhere else where you are following up a project or regular relationship and move the email out of the way.

    email was not designed for this in all honestly.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  118. Don't by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Don't use retention, get rid of it and make that your policy.
    It's the cheapest and safest way to deal with email.

    You should have a contract for anything truly important.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  119. Follow the rules and hope they did their homework by DREDLaw · · Score: 1

    This is in one of my areas of practice and you raise a valid point. As a beginning: 1) 6 months seems a bit short for all emails. 2) If your company is smart enough to control PSTs, then it is possible the email is being archived according to a valid records retention schedule or they really have other legitimate reasons for taking an aggressive approach to email deletion. On the other hand, simply leaving it up to employees to convert "important emails" into word documents would not likely protect them in court as a clear-cut and reasonable policy that was consistently enforced company-wide. Nobody has given you a clear-cut best practices because it doesn't exist otherwise you could probably buy it at Walmart or at least find a reasonable download. This is because every organization's policy must be reasonable considering the legal, business and technology that is available to them in their particular industry. So different industries have different standards and rules to follow. The worst flaw in your company's Email Retention Policy, as you describe it, is what happens when a government or official investigation is started, or a lawsuit is brought by or against your company? Now a legal hold must be placed on the email...and your word documents so nothing can be deleted or altered....wonder if they will have the storage space and tools necessary to deal with holding all potentially discoverable emails for 3-5 years...instead of 6 months???

  120. SOX? by Twylite · · Score: 1

    If "large organization" means a publicly listed company or subsidiary then you may want to draw your management's attention to SOX data retention requirements, and the potential criminal penalties for data destruction.

    Some links:
    - http://digg.com/security/E_Mail_Retention_Sarbanes_Oxley_White_Paper
    - http://www.creditworthy.com/3jm/articles/cw90507.html
    - http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/email_retention_the_legal_chernobyl.php

    Even if you don't have to be SOX compliant there are various other laws and precedents (see the last link) that should make you want to KEEP e-mail records rather than destroying them, unless you are actively and purposefully involved in criminal activity.

    --
    i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
  121. Exchange Macro by tillerman35 · · Score: 1

    If you're VBA (or vbscript) savvy, it's a fairly trivial exercise to write a macro to save off a copy of every incoming and outgoing email as a file on your hard drive. There are quite a few examples on the web, which I'm sure you can google.

  122. ITIL Best Practices by wykell · · Score: 1
    state that you should actually take a picture with your personal digital camera of the screen you have the e-mail on, then after saving that to your local machine AND whatever network storage you have, printing a color copy at 800dpi of each of those pictures.

    Only then can you escape the rigors of the Exchange Server limitations.

    --
    --- He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. ---
  123. managing archive email volume by Benjamin_Wright · · Score: 1

    As the size of e-mail archives swells, corporations can take steps to manage and reduce the volume of what they retain. --Ben http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/04/reducing-volume-of-e-mail-archives.html

    --
    Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
  124. Solution using outlook by skware · · Score: 1

    Select All, Drag to a folder in explorer. folder now contains a bunch of msg files that can be read by outlook.

  125. Smart Email Retention Policies by DougA · · Score: 1

    Email transmissions often are considered to be "records" of an organization. Thus, they are subject to that organization's compliance requirements.....regulatory, statutory, and are subject court-related discovery requirements. Merely deleting emails based on age is... how might one put it... "stupid, stupid, stupid" and can often lead to some rather unpleasant consequences in court. I'd recommend that you refer whoever the misguided souls who developed this policy might be to ARMA International (http://www.arma.org) where they can learn a bit more about how emails should be "declared" to be records or determined not to be records, and then retained according to that organization's records retention requirements. doug