Simple E-Mail Retention Policy
-
@Dashrender said:
My boss lives and dies by her email. She constantly reminds me how how he went back 8+ years in email to find something she talked about with someone, etc, etc...
Yeah, I'm the same. I have pretty much every e-mail I have ever sent or received since I first got e-mail in the late nineties. So that's nearly 20 years. I will occasionally delete e-mail I have received, but I never, ever, delete e-mail I have sent. You never know when it will come in handy
Mind you, some of my outstanding helpdesk tickets (the ones with the lowest priority) are over 10 years old.
-
Ah ha, I see. If it's Lawyer related, definately an advantage keeping everything.
I really don't like PST files. I have found them prone to corruption. -
Yes, but as previously mentioned, keeping email for the sake of keeping email is pretty bad, especially if it's likely to be subpoena'ed.
If this information needs to be saved for some other purpose, a better solution has to be out there. Granted - I'm not sure what it is. There probably is no better solution for the email chain than the email system itself.
I considering is one of the major issues with data today - how to store and sort it all. Google has made decent strides in their updates to Google Photo, making it easier to find specific people in photos, create timelines in photos, etc. But the mass of data that can exist in email is much more difficult to remove from email and put into another system, yet maintain the integrity of the email stream, etc.
-
At another company, all inbound/outbound emails are logged into an archive which are then searchable by the team, excluding emails used by Directors.
So for us support guys, if client says "you promised me bla 6 months ago" we can quickly find it.
Or if they say they never asked us to block Facebook, boom, here is the mail showing that they did request it.
Email archives are incredibly useful.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yes, but as previously mentioned, keeping email for the sake of keeping email is pretty bad, especially if it's likely to be subpoena'ed.
This is assuming that your company is or will do something bad, so let's make sure there is no evidence lying around.
It sounds like, let's get rid of the CCTV in case our CEO is caught on film doing something naughty. Don't understand the logic behind this.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@Dashrender said:
Yes, but as previously mentioned, keeping email for the sake of keeping email is pretty bad, especially if it's likely to be subpoena'ed.
This is assuming that your company is or will do something bad, so let's make sure there is no evidence lying around.
It sounds like, let's get rid of the CCTV in case our CEO is caught on film doing something naughty. Don't understand the logic behind this.
That's one way to look at it, another way is just not having to deal with the excess storage, or search requests (which can be time consuming). Keeping less email can also cause less need for CYA for the sake of CYA, sometimes creating a better work environment.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@Dashrender said:
Yes, but as previously mentioned, keeping email for the sake of keeping email is pretty bad, especially if it's likely to be subpoena'ed.
This is assuming that your company is or will do something bad, so let's make sure there is no evidence lying around.
It sounds like, let's get rid of the CCTV in case our CEO is caught on film doing something naughty. Don't understand the logic behind this.
Not quite. It's that there is little good but lots of risk to come from having old emails. Why increase liability if you don't need to? Why store old emails if you don't need to? Why retain records that are potentially dangerous for no reason?
Keep in mind, that if you store too much email, the risk might not be that you did something bad, but that someone accuses you of it and you are not liable for storing, retrieving and searching all of that email. Proving you didn't do something is harder the more email you have to verify to do it.
-
The cost of email archiving is comparatively cheap compared with the cost of mounting a legal defence when you have no evidence to protect yourself.
The use of email archiving from a management point of view is amazing, when you are looking after 120 sites over a 10 year period, all with differing issues and technologies, having an email trial of who said what, who did what and when is very useful.
When engineer X in 2009 made a change, we can look back and see why he recommended that change.
Is email archiving for everyone? Definitely not.
I had one incident with a company who had a 7 seven figure contract for a very long term project, retrieving those emails from 2012 meant that a huge amount of money was not lost. They now have an email archiving solution for such incidents.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
The cost of email archiving is comparatively cheap compared with the cost of mounting a legal defence when you have no evidence to protect yourself.
Archiving isn't the cost. Discovery is the cost.
-
If there was a chance at a loss of a 7 figure contract if you couldn't find the email then you had/have much more severe problems besides email archiving.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I had one incident with a company who had a 7 seven figure contract for a very long term project, retrieving those emails from 2012 meant that a huge amount of money was not lost. They now have an email archiving solution for such incidents.
Coming from big banking, email retention is not encouraged
The cost of saving unnecessary emails is huge. And the biggest cost is that you somehow fail to keep them or they don't get kept consistently. The longer you archive, the more the risk goes up. -
@scottalanmiller said:
Archiving isn't the cost. Discovery is the cost.
if the lawyers are involved, sure.
With one email archive box I used, emails from 2007 to 2014, in and out. Took a minute or 2 to find what I needed. It's like google-fu.
-
@Dashrender said:
If there was a chance at a loss of a 7 figure contract if you couldn't find the email then you had/have much more severe problems besides email archiving.
bwahahaha
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Archiving isn't the cost. Discovery is the cost.
if the lawyers are involved, sure.
That's pretty much what all email retention discussions are around. The primary discussion in the US around email retention is only about legal hold and discovery, nothing else. It is so risky and so expensive that everything else is pointless to really consider.
-
@Dashrender said:
If there was a chance at a loss of a 7 figure contract if you couldn't find the email then you had/have much more severe problems besides email archiving.
Not the whole contract but many companies do have problems.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
With one email archive box I used, emails from 2007 to 2014, in and out. Took a minute or 2 to find what I needed. It's like google-fu.
The concern is not finding "something", it is proving that there is "nothing."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Coming from big banking, email retention is not encouraged
2008
drops the mic, walks off stage
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If there was a chance at a loss of a 7 figure contract if you couldn't find the email then you had/have much more severe problems besides email archiving.
bwahahaha
I'm not sure what this means?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If there was a chance at a loss of a 7 figure contract if you couldn't find the email then you had/have much more severe problems besides email archiving.
bwahahaha
I'm not sure what this means?
Nor I.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
With one email archive box I used, emails from 2007 to 2014, in and out. Took a minute or 2 to find what I needed. It's like google-fu.
The concern is not finding "something", it is proving that there is "nothing."
Exactly - look at the Hilary thing - she's trying to prove that classified stuff was never sent to her personal non protected account. Which is pretty much impossible to prove.
