I think what many people forget is that email is only a way of getting information from one place to another.  The important factor being forgotten is that it is the content of the email that is important and not the fact that is an email.

Another important factor is that each time an email is transferred from one location to another, the metadata changes.  That is, if I move an email from the email server to a different folder, the metadata changes.

What is significant about that?  Well in legal proceedings, it is the original metadata that is important (who received what, when, and what route did it take, that is, was there an opportunity to change the content at any point from beginning to end?)

Also, if an email is printed out, the metadata is mostly lost (except for the to, from subject and date info).

It would make sense to have an on-line classification system with related folders that match your hardcopy records system. In turn, your retention schedules would also apply to your electronic records.  It would be through this process that archival selection could take place.  As you have already decided on archival selection of hardcopy records, the decision as to what would be selected should already be made.

Graham Kitchen
Corporate Records Manager
Unified Western Grocers
5200 Sheila Street
Commerce, California 90040
9323) 264-5200 Extension 4560
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Osier, Nina
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: E-mail management and retention


I'm copying below the text of an e-mail I received today from the Director
of Policies and Strategy at Maine's Office of Information Technology.  He is
a fellow member of an inter-agency team that's looking at the challenges
Maine faces in managing its digital records, starting with e-mail.  I
believe that any solution we decide upon must apply retention schedules to
e-mail, just as to any other records.  As you will see, OIT holds a
different viewpoint.

I have followed many Listserv discussions addressing this very issue.  I
have searched the Listserv Archives, and reviewed those discussions.  But
I'd still like to hear specific comments from my colleagues on this
communication.  I've promised, of course, to share your responses with the
team.  I have permission from the message's author to post his words here.

BTW, the "Jim" mentioned is James S. Henderson, State Archivist of Maine.
My boss.

Many thanks, and good weekend to all,

Nina

Nina M. Osier, Director
Division of Records Management Services
Maine State Archives
[log in to unmask]

<<I was very pleased with our progress in coming to a deeper understanding
of the issues around poor performance in managing electronic records today.
It is hard work, but necessary.  A lot of other smart people have struggled
over the years on this.  That they did not find a workable solution leads me
to suspect that it is in part because the problem crosses multiple areas of
responsibility and cannot be solved from a single point of view.

Driving back, I was struck by a statement that Jim made to the effect that
records management requirements for archiving are built on top of the normal
business process, and function to collect what Archives needs to obtain.  It
occurred to me that the present system was built on top of the normal
business process for handling paper and hence works quite well for paper
documents.  I submit that the way people work with electronic documents is
quite different from the way they work with paper.  Perhaps we should
rethink what the interface to Archives should be in this system.  

In particular, however people organize their email to suit their work needs
and the technology they are using, they may not be able to maintain the
present Archival interface (managed record sets arranged in predefined
categories).  What other approaches can Archives use to harvest the
documents it wants to preserve?  The white paper suggests one way might be
to save all or most email in a common repository and then improve our search
capability to select what is needed for a variety of purposes, including
Archives. 

The point is the present scheme for collecting archival data is not fool
proof.  Over the years, it has been tuned to capture an acceptably high
percentage of desired material.  Are there alternative capture methods that
could work as well or better given the changing work processes and enhanced
technology?  Google and Microsoft are leading the way to allow huge numbers
of unorganized (or idiosyncratically organized) documents to be text
searched at will.  This opens up the possibility of indexing documents
"after the fact" rather than requiring everyone to index them by filing them
in a predefined system.  I do not have a solution to propose, but I urge us
to spend some time trying to think outside the box to find one. 

Clearly, to move in this direction would be a huge change!  It would require
research and testing and ultimately a revision of many Archival rules and
regulations.  >>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
---------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attached documents contain information that may be 
confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you 
have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply 
e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance