hi jim, you make some good points, but it's a little different here. We're a media company - advertising, prepress, web solutions. A lot of document traffic is PDF's, quark documents - artwork revisions etc. It's very useful for our staff to keep this data in Outlook, because it provides an audit trail without having to do anything. For example, someone recieves a file, amends and sends it back. Their inbox holds a copy of the original, at the date, time etc when it was sent and received. Their sent items records the amended document and when it was returned. This is a simplified example - some of our consultants and mac operators have quite complex communication patterns with many agencies, printers etc and keeping it all together in Outlook is very efficient for them.
dan. > For the most part you don't need to keep either of the > messages. What I've > been beating people over the head here is that I don't care > that you have an > e-mail from 3 years ago stating that we would switch to Fubar > Software. If > it's part of meeting, then it needs to be in the meeting > minutes. If it was > part of a project, then it needs to be part of the project > documentation. > Most users will tell you they are keeping e-mail so they can CYA. Bull > biscuits. > > What are the attachments in the e-mails? Memo's? > Documentation? Budgets? All > of this should be published to a public folder or an intranet > and links sent > via e-mail. Go through you're e-mail, check the attachments > and see what you > have. How much of that information is repeated again and again in your > environment? Exchange was never meant to be a storage and > retrieval system. > > Of course all of the about is a behavioral issue, so there is > not much we > can do about it other than to educate the users. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:52 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > > I don't understand your solution Ed. You're saying to keep the IS > > manageable, get everyone to use OST's and save off > attachments? OST's > > aren't > > for archiving, they mirror the store - no space saved. Why > get users to > > pull > > attachments out of exchange to disparate locations on the > network? No > > backup, no owa access, no SIS, no 'audit trail' of their > work, big pain in > > the butt (saving several attachments from a message SUCKS!). > > > > Ideally I'd like exchange to do the archiving job for me, > but Microsoft > > likes leaving out useful features to perpetuate the third > party add-on > > market. So, I could have a really good third party archiver > that puts old > > data down to optical disk or something, but that's not > going to happen > > here > > for now so we'll stick to users archiving to PST's, and if > people want to > > put these on net drives to back them up I really don't see > a problem. > > > > dan. > > > > > Add to the OST idea teaching your users how to remove > attachments from > > > e-mail they feel they must save. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > > Tech Consultant > > > Compaq Computer > > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > > problems." > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > Atkinson, Daniel > > > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 8:10 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > > > > > > > thanks for your comment ed. > > > > > > i like the idea of offline folders, but surely these would > > > just be mirrors > > > of the users mailbox, or a subset thereof. That's not > what's needed > > > here...the users need to archive data so they stay under the > > > store limit and > > > can send mail. I don't see how an offline folder could be > used in this > > > manner. > > > > > > am i missing something about offline folders? > > > > > > dan. > > > > > > > I'm not going to argue with you on your point, but I > suggest that > > > > offline folders might be more appropriate. > > > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > > Tech Consultant > > > > Compaq Computer Corporation > > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > Of Atkinson, > > > > Daniel > > > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:52 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, check this pst scenario: > > > > > > > > exchange site in uk, 450 users, 400mb mailbox limit, 30gb store. > > > > > > > > servers are located in london, remote sites in northern > > > cities connect > > > > via 2mbps links. > > > > > > > > users often hit the mailbox limit and have to archive to pst. > > > > in london, > > > > they just move items to a pst on their local disk, and we > > > > make sure that > > > > they understand their data is no longer available via OWA > > > or backed up > > > > nightly. > > > > > > > > in the northern cities, the techs have put the PST's > onto network > > > > drives. i immediately yelled "pst on net drives = bad" but their > > > > philosophy is that they have plentiful disk space on their > > > > file servers > > > > and a fast network, so they do this to gain the advantage of > > > > backing up > > > > the pst's. > > > > > > > > i can't think of any good reason to persuade them to store > > > > the pst's on > > > > local hard drives, and i think that's because there isn't one. > > > > > > > > dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: 11 January 2002 06:11 > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's fine [1] but keep them off file servers. > > > > > > > > > > [1] not really > > > > > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > > > > Tech Consultant > > > > > Compaq Computer > > > > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > > > > problems." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > > Cook, David A. > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:34 PM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have read all those things about PST=BAD and I have used > > > > > all of those. > > > > > I gave my suggestion of do not allow any PSTs and I was > > > told that we > > > > > have to allow PSTs. The reasons is the best part of the > > > whole thing, > > > > > "they have always been able to use PSTs so we can't take that > > > > > away from > > > > > them". Politics is the problem. > > > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking about this the madder it makes me. I've > > > > > given this > > > > > recommendation before and then this time I was asked > to give the > > > > > recommendation again so it could be taking to the powers that > > > > > be. I give > > > > > my recommendation and I'm told it is not acceptable. I'm > > > pretty much > > > > > being given the recommandation and being told that it is my > > > > > recommendation now justify it. I can't justify the > wrong decision. > > > > > > > > > > So that was my rant that you all could care less about but > > > > thank you > > > > > everyone for the input. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave Cook > > > > > Exchange Administrator > > > > > Kutak Rock, LLP > > > > > 402-231-8352 > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
