Unless it's a real archiving system it's doubtful that any discovery results
would stand up under rigorous legal circumstance. That should be enough on its
own to tip the decision in favour of a real archiving system.

Brian Pituley
Director of Information Technology
T: 408-441-3611
F: 408-441-8405
E: bpituley@... <mailto:bpituley@...>

________________________________

From: exchangelist-bounce@... on behalf of Adam Archer
Sent: Thu 7/2/2009 1:34 PM
To: exchangelist@...
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Exchange 2003 Mail Store Question


Thanks for the input. I am really trying to help build a case for email
archiving. I am not sure if it is budget reasons or what but the solution below
is the one that is being pushed. I guess I need to know if anyone sees any
potential problems that I might incur going down this route.


On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Matt Nelson <nelsonm@...> wrote:


Yeah, we're using Datacove due to the ease of search capability aside from
legal compliance. It makes it really easy to find documents that the users have
emailed to eachother. In the scenario below you cannot prove that you did a
diligent search or that the emails were not deleted. Archiving solutions for
legal compliance should be able to prove that you did a proper search and that
no emails have been deleted (at least not deleted from the archive).



From: exchangelist-bounce@...
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@...] On Behalf Of Adam Archer
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:47 AM
To: exchangelist@...
Subject: [ExchangeList] Exchange 2003 Mail Store Question



Here is our situation. Our Compliance/Legal Departments are in the process of
redefining record retention. In regards to email here is what they are
proposing. Setup 4 mail stores. One for basic users, one for more advanced
users, one for executives, and then one for legal holds. The idea is that
whenever there is a legal hold, move the mailboxes to the legal hold mail store.
Each mail store has different email limits.The legal hold mail store has no
limits. Is this a good practice (moving mailboxes to different stores often)?
Would there be any risks that we would run moving mailboxes around like this?

In our current environment, we have about 60 users that have mailboxes over
2gb. Unfortunately in the past we have only been sending out warnings on the
size of your mailbox. In the new proposal, we will not allow users to send email
after they reach their limit.


It seems like it would be easier to go with an archiving solution instead of
trying to make exchange to this in a make shift way. Any imput or suggestions on
this will be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,





________________________________________________________
The information in this communication and any attachments is confidential and
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us
immediately and delete the original message and any copies of it.

Any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of the company are neither given nor endorsed by
the company.

"Scion Capital, LLC" is a registered trademark of Scion Capital, LLC with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
_________________________________________________________