Many organizations see messaging as a transport system or a communication system and fail to see the significant body of knowledge that is captured in the e-mails. The problem arises with this data not being organized into easily searchable information. Archival solutions are really a patch on top of this, allowing the organization to index and search for the information that they need.
I think you're correct in thinking that most companies don't see the cost of implementing an archival solution being lower than the benefit of being able to mine the information out of the messages. Where you will see some movement is the in the regulatory and other legal compliance issues. Being able to discover all messages relating to an incident, a business decision, customer trades, etc. etc. and getting this information to lawyers or regulators is fast becoming an important piece of business. Companies that must implement these types of solutions would be smart to leverage their investment in archival solutions to also provide knowledge management. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' I have ony found one solution to this type of problem and it is called an Email Archival system. I have no idea why this type of a solution is not more popular. It gets the information out of the Exchange stores and off user's hard drives and onto permanent storage on CD's or DVD's. The systems they have now integrate quite well with Exchange, provide advanced security capabilities and include full-text searching capabilities. And users can access the systems via a web browser. Why more people do not use these systems is anyone's guess. Apparently most email admins out there are content with draconian storage policies or catering to users like poor Russell who is personally buring CD's. It can all be automated and you can have the best of all worlds. Email Archival systems folks, they have been around for a long time and work quite well. I recommend them to nearly every client that I work for because there is so much business knowledge in email that it is almost criminal the way some companies blast it from their systems after only a week or two. If they actually understood and appreciated the amount of knowledge and business process information that they were losing, they would never do such an incredibly stupid thing. And Craig, I have to disagree with you about user provided storage. Individuals have consistently proven that they simply cannot store, organize and process large amounts of data. If I received as much snail mail as email, my entire house would be full of unorganized stacks of crap. Proper storage of business information should reside on business systems, not on personally provided storage. Centralization and automation of storage is incredibly more efficient and productive than individual users storing their own information. > Tongue out of cheek - this is a product design problem of course. > > Give me one good reason for Exchange being in the storage or data > management business. How it ought to work in a world with Active > Directories and Distributed File System overlays to NTFS is that a > mailbox should be a pointer to user provided storage. Who provides > your snail mail box? It's not the post office, unless you are renting > a PO Box. Normal delivery is to storage that you provide, structure > and manage. > > Why does Exchange deliver primarily to message stores? Because of a > lack of sufficient protocols and customer demand to do it right. > > If your customer thinks your service is inadequate, your customer is > not wrong. As someone earlier in this thread said so eloquently (if > misguidedly) > > duh! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Etts, Russell [mailto:retts@;harman.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' > > > Hi there > > I have the same issue here. People have PST files that are well over > a gig, and we had one person go over the 2 gig limit. No matter what > we tell them, they insist that they need a mailbox over a gig. I > limit them to a max of 300 megs, no matter how much crying they do. I > just don't know what to do. > > I have told people once their PSTs hit 600 megs, then I'll transfer it > to my machine and burn them a CD rom. > > Thanks > > Russell > > -----Original Message----- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions@;entrysecurity.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:56 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' > > No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy. > > I don't back up PSTs. Period. Either its in their mailbox or it is > not that important. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sander Van > Butzelaar > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 05:49 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow' > > > I have a couple of users who do the same thing. They don't want to > delete old mail (for whatever reason) and I can't keep extending their > mailbox sizes. So they "move" to PST. Be aware of the risks here! Make > a periodic backup of that PST as hard drives are prone to failure. > > Sander > > -----Original Message----- > From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist@;partition.co.uk] > Sent: 06 November 2002 12:45 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Using a PST for 'overflow' > > I was having a discussion with someone the other day and he mentioned > this phrase in passing, that they used PST files when user mailboxes > became full > > I didn't dwell on this as we were talking about something else, but > can anyone suggest what he may have meant? We are now enforcing > stricter limits on mailbox size and would be interested in something > like this. > > For ongoing maintenance, is Outlooks Autoarchiving a viable solution? > i.e. does this move mail out of the server information store and into > a PST in the users local profile? > > Thanks > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
