004 4:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
Determining a BCC Recipient
Let's please try to keep the personal stuff off of
this list for the good of everyone. Even though I might find it a tad bit
amusing at times when it is directed at me, I don't think that othe
Let's please try to keep the personal stuff off of this list for the
good of everyone. Even though I might find it a tad bit amusing at
times when it is directed at me, I don't think that others appreciate
seeing it here, and I generally don't. I hesitated even to draft this
reply except that
> you shouldn't proceed under the assumption that government
> regulators are out there giving IT staff lists of words to be used
> in "full-text search" of E-mail archives. That is not the law, and
> it is not how subpoenas are issued.
First: I clearly noted that legal (or comp
On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 10:44:32 PM, Matt wrote:
M> Patrick Childers wrote:
>>Hi Pete,
>>I think your gut is right. I'm pretty sure that I have 2 clients that would
>>be quite interested in "SOXsniffer".
>>
>>
M> Not to debate the applicability of the technology, but you shouldn't
M> p
Patrick Childers wrote:
Hi Pete,
I think your gut is right. I'm pretty sure that I have 2 clients that would
be quite interested in "SOXsniffer".
Not to debate the applicability of the technology, but you shouldn't
proceed under the assumption that government regulators are out there
giving I
> Point is, an existing mechanism can be extended to satisfy
> multiple needs. For example, SOX is not the only reason a
> company might want to dig into it's email archive --- there
> are lots of reasons both good and bad. I like the idea. I
> will extend the spec to accommodate hooks for th
On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 7:55:09 PM, Sanford wrote:
>> Picture if you will an MTA with Message Sniffer installed where an
>> archive is generated automatically using a compressed format.
SW> The compression part is one thing I'm not too clear on, and. . .
>> that is, the matchin
> Picture if you will an MTA with Message Sniffer installed where an
> archive is generated automatically using a compressed format.
The compression part is one thing I'm not too clear on, and. . .
> that is, the matching message as an attachment to a report message
> that describes
> All of this makes me wonder if our pattern matching engine
> and a simple archive of messages might be a useful product in
> this case.
>
> Picture if you will an MTA with Message Sniffer installed
> where an archive is generated automatically using a
> compressed format. Perhaps one file
On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 4:08:30 PM, Sanford wrote:
>> Show me a search of a full text index that can positively give you
>> 100% of the hits on a given topic and I'll let you have this one :)
SW> The regulators will typically give you a list of search terms to be
SW> used in a ful
> Show me a search of a full text index that can positively give you
> 100% of the hits on a given topic and I'll let you have this one :)
The regulators will typically give you a list of search terms to be
used in a full-text search. Their specifications are what guide the
accuracy of t
Show me a search of a full text index that can positively give you 100%
of the hits on a given topic and I'll let you have this one :) Manual
review is necessary to verify, and chances are you would need to
manually review every E-mail going to and from specific employees
across a range of dat
> Each company is different and therefore so are their needs.
Okay, but _Rick's_ needs are SOX compliance. I don't have any interest
in discussing general archiving methods; to each his/her own in that
effort.
> Many that archive will never need to go through the data, primarily
> because man
Please don't parse my words so carefully. Each company is different
and therefore so are their needs. Many that archive will never need to
go through the data, primarily because many companies aren't so
enormous that they have the legal liability nor the volume that would
necessitate a preemp
> I strongly recommend that you just simply keep these in their Q* and
> D* formats and zip up the directories every night and write them to
> a CD or something every so often.
Like I keep trying to say, this isn't an "every so often" or
best-effort regulation. It's strict and for-real.
-
From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rick Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:46 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
I will look into those, the boss wants me to do this on the cheap,
the
;Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
That's funny that you should ask. I just coded that one up in
VBScript this last weekend. I even managed to decode base6
> And can't you use Declude to insert the routing information into the
> headers?
Not without compromising BCC recipients, which is unacceptable.
> And can't you download the e-mail from the inbox into the mail
> client of your choosing and archive it that way?
Possibly, but that's an
.
- Original Message -
From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dan Geiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 5:33 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
> > If it were me I would just use the CATCHA
Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
>
>
> > Essentially the good folks at Enron and WorldComm brought us the
> > Sarbanes-Oxley Act o
> If it were me I would just use the CATCHALLMAILS feature of Declude
> and COPY them to an archival e-mail address and then just burn the
> inbox of that address to disk once a month.
For low-volume and unregulated businesses, perhaps, but this will not
accomplish compliance, since:
- it d
D]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
> Essentially the good folks at Enron and WorldComm brought us the
> Sarbanes-Oxley Act or SOX for short. Public companies have to keep a
record
> of all communications, the details of
Mabry Internet/X Controls has a very good "Mime" processing
controls for easy reading of uue files.
- Original Message -
From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Dete
: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
>
> > I will look into those, the boss wants me to do this on
> the cheap,
> > the sql idea was first so we could at least say we were
> archiving
> > the email.
>
> If you just want archiving for independent
> I will look into those, the boss wants me to do this on the cheap,
> the sql idea was first so we could at least say we were archiving
> the email.
If you just want archiving for independent audit and to show good
faith, concatenate the Q and D into an envelope-preserving MBOX for
e
large attachments to deal with.
Rick Davidson
National Systems Manager
North American Title Group
-
- Original Message -
From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rick Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
Rick,
I am looking at creating our own email archiving solution using sql
This, as Matt notes, could be monstro
idson
National Systems Manager
North American Title Group
-
- Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
That's going to be one
remove attachments
would you? :-)
Rick Davidson
National Systems Manager
North American Title Group
-
- Original Message -
From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Deter
Rick,
> I am looking at creating our own email archiving solution using sql
This, as Matt notes, could be monstrous. It certainly is not
best-practice to store this many CLOBs (or BLOBs, if you're decoding
MIME) in a generic DB. That's why the only RDBMS message stores worth
their s
am to parse and insert it into the SQL database.
Rick Davidson
National Systems Manager
North American Title Group
-
- Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] De
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient
Rick,
This information is in the Q* file. If you use the COPYFILE action, it
will keep both the D* and the Q* file. The only issue is that the Declude
headers are lost an
Rick,
This information is in the Q* file. If you use the COPYFILE action, it
will keep both the D* and the Q* file. The only issue is that the
Declude headers are lost and each message is kept separately and not
viewable without a special application like spamreview. IMO, this is
appropriate
I am looking at creating our own email archiving solution using sql, the
main hurdle is how to handle and email sent to a user using BCC. Is there a
way to use Declude to include that info in a recipient x-header?
If I send myself using only the BCC field the header contains only this
From: "Ric
34 matches
Mail list logo
