Jesse,

The keep-everything email "archiving" applications that I've seen do not
address all of the RM controls for a document. They address capture and
search. (And search is not 100%) They don't address retention or
destruction.

In Outlook, I know you can set up a rule that automatically moves
messages from a designated sender with a particular subject into a
specific Outlook folder. Question: can you set up a rule that copies
every message from that sender into a folder outside of Outlook-- your
own network folders? That would essentially file the message where you
want it to go. Not only would that classify it, because you have set up
your own folders according to your own classification, but it would also
segregate the messages into network folders you can apply a retention
to. Can Outlook do this already? 

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Wilkins [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] RAINdrop - Testimony of David Ferriero - Nominee for
Archivist of the US

Digging out from a very good meeting in Minneapolis today but in
conjunction
with both this note and the earlier thread on email, I'm of two minds: 

1. Traditional records management argues that it's better to spend the
time,
energy, and effort at the front end of the process in order to save
time,
energy and effort at the back end. In other words, keep what you need to
as
long as you need to, but then get rid of it. That's a best practice and
of
course I wholly support it. It also goes along with Robert Williams'
point
about the materials management-based origin of paper records management
(which I think is true but insufficient on its own - maybe much more
later
after I finish my MARA work for the week).

2. However, the archivist makes a point (and one that has been raised
before
on this list). Given advances in search technology, the ability to index
most text-type documents, the availability of and capability to search
metadata from many sources including intrinsic, structured (traditional
data
entry/metadata model-based), and unstructured (tagging), and the
ever-decreasing cost of storage, it is not always straightforward to
make
the case for paying at the front end because of the potential costs at
the
back end. Moreover, there have been some cases recently, not a lot of
them,
but some, that call into question the legitimacy (from the court's point
of
view) of allowing employees to make decisions about what to keep and
what to
discard. I want to stress that I am not making a judgment in favor of
this,
merely reporting what I've seen in all of the legal blogs and Twitter
posts
from lawyers about decisions. 

So given those two things, I'm not sure I'm surprised at the archivist's
response. I think it will be interesting to see what other feedback
y'all
have and that come from other sources. 

Thoughts?

Respectfully submitted on behalf of myself alone and no other company,
organization, association, entity, or board of directors,

Jesse Wilkins, CRM
[log in to unmask] 
(303) 574-0749 direct
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of
the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]