Comments on: E-Mail Retention & Sarbanes-Oxley White Paper http://www.edgeblog.net/2006/e-mail-retention-sarbanes-oxley-white-paper/ Notes from the edge Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:17:23 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Kieron Dowling http://www.edgeblog.net/2006/e-mail-retention-sarbanes-oxley-white-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-135134 Kieron Dowling Tue, 06 Jul 2010 02:52:12 +0000 http://www.edgebacklabs.net/2006/8/#comment-135134 When it comes to compliance, Jatheon's email archiving appliances meets email archiving compliance requirements including, SEC, NASD, HIPAA, FRCP, and Sarbanes Oxley. It is available on the PnC2 and Dell platforms, offers solutions for small, medium and large enterprise. When it comes to compliance, Jatheon’s email archiving appliances meets email archiving compliance requirements including, SEC, NASD, HIPAA, FRCP, and Sarbanes Oxley. It is available on the PnC2 and Dell platforms, offers solutions for small, medium and large enterprise.

]]> By: Bill Ryan’s Other Blog » For the 10,000,000th time, Email isn’t private http://www.edgeblog.net/2006/e-mail-retention-sarbanes-oxley-white-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-113822 Bill Ryan’s Other Blog » For the 10,000,000th time, Email isn’t private Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:15:07 +0000 http://www.edgebacklabs.net/2006/8/#comment-113822 [...] Backup and storage are very cheap.  Years ago, many companies would save money by getting rid of logs/records/emails older than X years, the opposite is the case now.  Moreover, if you work at a publicly traded company, a private company that contracts with/for the government, or a government agency, there are probably laws requiring that all of those records are kept for a long time.  That varies depending on the nature of the entity, but items like Section 802 of Sarbanes-Oxley have pretty strict requirements for email retention. [...] [...] Backup and storage are very cheap.  Years ago, many companies would save money by getting rid of logs/records/emails older than X years, the opposite is the case now.  Moreover, if you work at a publicly traded company, a private company that contracts with/for the government, or a government agency, there are probably laws requiring that all of those records are kept for a long time.  That varies depending on the nature of the entity, but items like Section 802 of Sarbanes-Oxley have pretty strict requirements for email retention. [...]

]]> By: Alessio Aguirre http://www.edgeblog.net/2006/e-mail-retention-sarbanes-oxley-white-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-92882 Alessio Aguirre Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:35:04 +0000 http://www.edgebacklabs.net/2006/8/#comment-92882 Thank you, very helpful. Thank you, very helpful.

]]> By: edgeblog » Supreme Court Releases New E-Discovery Rules http://www.edgeblog.net/2006/e-mail-retention-sarbanes-oxley-white-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-91 edgeblog » Supreme Court Releases New E-Discovery Rules Sat, 02 Dec 2006 08:35:55 +0000 http://www.edgebacklabs.net/2006/8/#comment-91 [...] In case you missed the news, today new Supreme Court rules went into effect regarding e-discovery. There were several good articles on the wires today: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20061202/tc_cmp/195900034" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Yahoo</a>; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100567.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Washington Post</a>; <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/061201/general.html?.v=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Investor’s Business Daily</a>. The problem with all these articles is that they don’t provide links to the actual rules published by the court. Since I have no life, I searched the Supreme Court’s website for the published rules. The new rules (<a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/frcv06p.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/frcv06p.pdf</a>) were released by the Supremes last April. Based on my reading, there is both good and bad news in the rules with regards to e-discovery[...] [...] In case you missed the news, today new Supreme Court rules went into effect regarding e-discovery. There were several good articles on the wires today: Yahoo; Washington Post; Investor’s Business Daily. The problem with all these articles is that they don’t provide links to the actual rules published by the court. Since I have no life, I searched the Supreme Court’s website for the published rules. The new rules (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/frcv06p.pdf) were released by the Supremes last April. Based on my reading, there is both good and bad news in the rules with regards to e-discovery[...]

]]> By: bill http://www.edgeblog.net/2006/e-mail-retention-sarbanes-oxley-white-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-18 bill Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:50:07 +0000 http://www.edgebacklabs.net/2006/8/#comment-18 What version of Acrobat are you using? The file should open fine with the current reader. It is pasword protected against modification, so it may cause problems for 3rd party readers. -Bill What version of Acrobat are you using? The file should open fine with the current reader. It is pasword protected against modification, so it may cause problems for 3rd party readers.

-Bill

]]> By: Bayly http://www.edgeblog.net/2006/e-mail-retention-sarbanes-oxley-white-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Bayly Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:42:01 +0000 http://www.edgebacklabs.net/2006/8/#comment-17 I tried to dowload this PDF, but I get an error message - "Bad encrypt dictionary" ? I tried to dowload this PDF, but I get an error message – “Bad encrypt dictionary” ?

]]>