Re: Email Policy Changes -- encourage im instead of email

[teacher1st <teacher1st () bellsouth net>]

Hello People,

The problem may be wrong technology.  Perhaps in many instances IM 
should be used rather than email.

At the last company I worked we had a situation where an email was sent 
rather than an instant message.

Two problems were:
- email with a very long threads and something "embarrassing" way down 
would be sent
- short, casual, unfiltered [can't think of a better work] emails

We set up training program that, first of all, encouraged using Instant 
Messages and, second, discussed email etiquette.

Follow up showed the training worked.

Best,

teacher1st


On 1/18/2011 12:57 PM, David Kovar wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This policy is becoming standard in a lot of corporations. I think the 
> powers that be have more market research for their point of view than 
> you can drum up for yours.
>
> -David
>
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Craig Freyman wrote:
>
> > I agree that the policy is very bad and Bugbear is 100% correct. They 
> > don't understand the technology piece at all. However, we've fought 
> > it HARD and lost. I'm going to bring all these points up though, much 
> > thanks for your insight.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Jack Daniel <jackadaniel () gmail com 
> > <mailto:jackadaniel () gmail com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Bill Swearingen
> >     <hevnsnt () i-hacked com <mailto:hevnsnt () i-hacked com>> wrote:
> >     > I dont understand why you wouldnt want to comply with policy?
> >     > The reason the lawyers have made this decision is because of
> >     ediscovery.  If
> >     > their is a policy (and technical restraints) to not keep stuff
> >     past 60 days,
> >     > then they cant be requested to discover email and documents
> >     older than that.
> >     > Sounds like you are looking for a good way of being fired!
> >     > $0.02
> >     >
> >     Good point Bill, but I interpreted the request as trying to cover all
> >     the bases to help enforce the policy, and framed answers as such.
> >
> >     That said, this is such a bad policy that it will be defeated.
> >      People
> >     are going to do their jobs, in spite of policy- you are much more
> >     likely to be disciplined or fired for not doing your job than you are
> >     to be disciplined for not following policy (at least in almost every
> >     biz I've ever dealt with)
> >
> >     This shows it isn't just us security types who ignore the
> >     realities of
> >     business when crafting policy. The dangers of e-discovery damage
> >     would
> >     have to be insanely high for this to be in the best interest of the
> >     company as a whole.  But, we security types ask for dumb stuff
> >     all the
> >     time, too.
> >
> >     Jack
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Pauldotcom mailing list
> >     Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> >     <mailto:Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com>
> >     http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> >     Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com <mailto:Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com>
> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com

_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com