>>What the court wants to know is what was originally said, to whom,
when, was it received, where did it go from there, etc. (regular audit
trail stuff).<<

Not sure I buy into the line of thought this is appears to be leading
to.  If I understand the premise correctly, email records may be looked
at by the court with askance because they contain a bundle of multiple
posts, with each additional post offering an exponential opportunity for
someone to make changes to previous content.  Makes for a very
interesting theory, however, over the past several years, I do not
recall a single incidence where the court has ruled against admission of
emails or offered instructions that their value as evidence was
diminished because of the multiple opportunities for revision.  On the
other hand, in an hour or so, I can find references to a hundred cases
where email was used as the evidentiary bomb that sealed the deal. 

Bill R

Bill Roach, CRM
Enterprise EDMS Coordinator
State of North Dakota
ITD/Records Management
701-328-3589

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