Yeah, supposedly this came down from the corporate lawyers. The basic premise was to preserve the information but only in a format that could have been modified so that it would not be admissible in court. Oh, I'm sure somebody is really going to get into trouble over this. I hope they hang the b*ds.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:53 PM, maccrawj <maccr...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is stupid and akin to destroying evidence as a day-2-day business > practice. It was my understanding that businesses HAVE TO backup email > traffic & maintain the archive same as paper just in case legal demand is > made for the content. > > Steve Tomporowski wrote: >> >> A little bit of searching and I've found out that we're pretty much >> screwed. If we had Word 2003, we could use that as editor and do any >> conversion, since we've never upgraded, that's that. >> >> The whole idea of using rtf is to keep the email and attachment >> together. If you save as html, then you have to save the attachment >> separately or at least in the screwed up way our system is now. >> >> As for why, it's fit for a dilbert cartoon. Apparently if the message >> is in it's native form, either still in outlook or saved as a .msg >> file, our lawyers believe that it is admissible as evidence in court. >> As soon as it is changed in form, it's not admissible in court. It >> seems that our lawyers believe that we either are or will in the >> future do plenty of stuff to get us into legal trouble, so they want >> to cover their buttocks. Of course, if one of our customers knows >> about this, they can screw us over royally by producing emails they >> have, but we have long since deleted. We would have no leg to stand >> on. >> >> Steve >> >
