It's really impossible to say based on the information provided whether the solution proposed is the right one or not. I've seen similar solutions implemented successfully.
I also think it's a tad presumtious to say whether or not the solution as proposed will survive discovery requirements. With proper process, security and documentation it certainly can do so. In any event, the technical capabilities and limitations of any solution should be presented to the legal department (in writing) mapped against the requirements. It's then their decision as to its ability to meet their legal standard - after all, they are the ones that may need to defend it. All you should do is clearly tell them (again, formally and in writing) what can or cannot be done with the solution options, and recommend what best meets their requirements as they have defined them.
RickOn Jul 3, 2009, at 12:07 PM, "Brian Pituley" <bpituley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Unless it's a real archiving system it's doubtful that any discovery results would stand up under rigorous legal circumstance. That should be enough on its own to tip the decision in favour of a real archiving system.Brian Pituley Director of Information Technology T: 408-441-3611 F: 408-441-8405 E: bpituley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bpituley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ________________________________ From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Adam Archer Sent: Thu 7/2/2009 1:34 PM To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 Mail Store QuestionThanks for the input. I am really trying to help build a case for email archiving. I am not sure if it is budget reasons or what but the solution below is the one that is being pushed. I guess I need to know if anyone sees any potential problems that I might incur going down this route.On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Matt Nelson <nelsonm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Yeah, we're using Datacove due to the ease of search capability aside from legal compliance. It makes it really easy to find documents that the users have emailed to eachother. In the scenario below you cannot prove that you did a diligent search or that the emails were not deleted. Archiving solutions for legal compliance should be able to prove that you did a proper search and that no emails have been deleted (at least not deleted from the archive).From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:exchangelist- bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam ArcherSent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:47 AM To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ExchangeList] Exchange 2003 Mail Store QuestionHere is our situation. Our Compliance/Legal Departments are in the process of redefining record retention. In regards to email here is what they are proposing. Setup 4 mail stores. One for basic users, one for more advanced users, one for executives, and then one for legal holds. The idea is that whenever there is a legal hold, move the mailboxes to the legal hold mail store. Each mail store has different email limits.The legal hold mail store has no limits. Is this a good practice (moving mailboxes to different stores often)? Would there be any risks that we would run moving mailboxes around like this?In our current environment, we have about 60 users that have mailboxes over 2gb. Unfortunately in the past we have only been sending out warnings on the size of your mailbox. In the new proposal, we will not allow users to send email after they reach their limit.It seems like it would be easier to go with an archiving solution instead of trying to make exchange to this in a make shift way. Any imput or suggestions on this will be greatly appreciated.Thanks, ________________________________________________________The information in this communication and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us immediately and delete the original message and any copies of it.Any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company are neither given nor endorsed by the company."Scion Capital, LLC" is a registered trademark of Scion Capital, LLC with the United States Patent and Trademark Office._________________________________________________________ <winmail.dat>
-------------------------------------------------------List Archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/exchangelist/ MSExchange Newsletter: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp MSExchange Articles and Tutorials: http://www.msexchange.org/articles_tutorials/ MSExchange Blogs: http://blogs.msexchange.org/ -------------------------------------------------------
Visit TechGenix.com for more information about our other sites:http://www.techgenix.com -------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe visit http://www.msexchange.org/pages/exchangelist.aspReport abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx