I'm not sure that machine-generated emails canalways legitimately be 
clasified as transitory or non-record.  If it's a warning, say, isn't 
the question of who got the warning, and when, relevant to any 
downstream dispute in the same manner as a human-generated warning?

Nicholas Brookes wrote:
> While most of the discussion about emails is directed at human to human emails, there is another type that we seldom talk about.  There are those caution/warning messages, generated by machines and automated systems, that must be readable in the mailboxes of those personnel tasked to respond to these warnings.  For many reasons, the Email system both conveys these messages and in some cases archives them.  Seems there are at least three ways these emails can be handled:
>
> 1.	Define Email in a manner that excludes this machine generated traffic from the definition of "Email" record.
> 2.	Allow these machine generated emails to be classified as transitory records and allow destruction after their usefulness is over
> 3.	Classify these emails like other email records, based on content and assign a retention period to them.
>
>

-- 
Best regards,

John
John Montaña
Montaña & Associates
29 Parsons Road
Landenberg Pennsylvania 19350
610-255-1588
484-653-8422 mobile
[log in to unmask]
www.montana-associates.com
twitter: @johncmontana




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]