Library and Archives Canada
www.collectionscanada.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Institutional links
Government
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
Email Management Guidelines - Roadmap
3. Institutions must organize business-related email in accordance with a classification system relevant to each organization's business requirements
Management of email requires the establishment of a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to describing the institution's information. To prevent an unwieldy accumulation, all email messages and attachments that are to be retained for a prescribed period should be appropriately classified, on a timely basis, in an up-to-date and comprehensive classification structure or structures, including metadata. Individual mailboxes, shared mailboxes and public mailboxes should be managed in a consistent and effective manner. Subject lines of email messages are often used as search tools, so they should provide a helpful reflection of the contents of the record. The filing system for email messages should facilitate organized and efficient indexing, storage and retrieval of messages. The filing system should also preserve any linkages or threads between messages in a series, to provide a contextual backdrop to any single message in the sequence.
Expected Outcome
In any given federal government institution, the following benchmarks will have been achieved:
- There will be a comprehensive description of the institution's information holdings.
- There will be a thorough and up-to date classification structure or structures, which will include metadata.
- Users will know where to classify (file) their email records, or be assisted and /or restricted by automated systems, when choosing the appropriate repository for a record.
- Users will know and practice simple techniques to facilitate search and retrieval.
3.1. Maintain and use an organized and efficient filing system for email
Email messages, other than non-records or transitory messages, should be moved from the email system to a separate filing system where they should be organized as specified in the classification structure approved by the institution. Messages should be indexed and kept for institution use until their scheduled disposal or until their transfer to archival storage. Archival storage should also be organized and indexed for efficient retrieval.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Users
- Network or System Administrators
- Information Management Specialists
Rationale
Canadian courts have followed a well-recognized approach which holds that a document filing system that belongs to a party involved in litigation should be organized and labelled or indexed in such a manner as to facilitate use by the other party.
It can be extremely time-consuming to locate relevant evidence, and a party to litigation might argue that the cost of producing records for discovery is too great. Courts will weigh the cost of discovery against the potential benefits of having the evidence. However, Courts have not been sympathetic when it has been determined that a major portion of the cost is due to the fact that the party's filing system is poorly organized.
It is important not to underestimate the cost of discovery. On a major case, involving a large institution, the cost can run into the hundreds of thousands, indeed into the millions of dollars. In a number of jurisdictions, some defendants have settled out of court, not as an admission of guilt, but because settlement was less expensive than assembling the evidence required for a defence.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) to maintain a well-organized and efficient system for filing email. Executives and managers at all levels, are expected to work closely with the Information Manager to (devise, perfect, expand) the institution's filing system so as to ensure email messages can be classified (filed) and stored in such a manner as to be easily retrieved when needed. All users are expected to manage their email in an effective way, to delete non-records as soon as they are no longer of use, and to classify and file email messages on a frequent basis, and to adhere to the conventions of the filing system.
3.2. Establish where to store the "copy of record"
A classification structure and repository should be established to store incoming or outgoing messages that are considered government records or government information.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Network or System Administrators
- Information Management Specialists
- Executives
Rationale
The more copies of an email message that exist, the more challenging it is to establish which is the "official" copy, or "copy of record."
Ideally, only one copy should exist, other than a backup copy for disaster recovery. However, this may not always be possible given the available technology and other considerations. Where more than one copy exists of an email message, metadata and attachment, it is important to have clear rules for the user to follow about which copy is to be considered the copy of record and where it is stored.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) to determine the classification structure and repository for storage of the copy of record of government records, or government information in the following way (provide brief description of the classification structure and how to place email messages in the appropriate repository / or provide a link to the official document that contains this information).
The appropriate repository for email files is based on their content and classification, and not on the medium.
3.3. Preserve metadata related to email
Metadata associated with email should be recorded as specified in TBITS 39: Treasury Board Information Management Standard
- Part 1: Government On-Line Metadata Standard
(Source: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/its-nit/standards/tbits39/crit391_e.asp) - Part 2: Controlled Vocabulary Standard
(Source: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cio-dpi/pols_e.asp#IT)
The TBITS 39 -Government On-Line Metadata Standard adopts the Dublin Core as specified at www.dublincore.org/ as the core metadata standard for resource discovery. Metadata is necessary to support navigation, searching, information sharing and interoperability goals of Government On-Line.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Network or System Administrators
- Information Management Specialists
Rationale
Without metadata, the authenticity, integrity, and reliability of email messages cannot be proven and the electronic document may not be considered a record. Metadata helps to link the messages to other messages or other information holdings, as may be required in response to an Access to Information Request, during discovery in legal proceedings, or during an audit. Metadata may record several types of information.
- Reference information is used to uniquely identify a message
- Content information identifies what the message is about
- Context information documents relationships with other records and information
- Fixity information (indicators of authenticity) provides data integrity checks and validation keys to ensure authenticity
Metadata identifies where and when an email message was created, by whom, who it was sent to, where it is stored, how it is formatted, and when it was read, etc. It may also provide a history of migration procedures and actions that have been applied to the message over a lengthy retention period.
In addition to TBITS 39 Treasury Board Information Management Standard, Information Management Specialists may wish to review and consider the following publications in order to determine what specific metadata elements are best applied to facilitate the management of email messages and attachments in their respective institutions.
- Government of Canada Records Management Metadata Standard / by Treasury Board of Canada. Secretariat. Government On-Line Metadata Working Group. Records Management Sub-Group, February 2006
(www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/products-services/007002-5001-e.html) - Government of Canada Executive Correspondence Management Metadata Application Profile / by Library and Archives Canada, March 2006
(www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/products-services/007002-5003-e.html). - Dublin Core Application Profile (DCAP) for Web Resource Discovery in the Government of Canada / by Treasury Board of Canada. Secretariat. Information Standards and Interoperability, March 2006.
(www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/meta/profil/profil00_e.asp) - Government of Canada Metadata Implementation Guidelines for Web Resource Discovery, 5th edition / by Treasury Board of Canada. Secretariat. Government On-Line Metadata Working Group. Training Sub-group, December 2006
(www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/mwg-gtm/ts-sf/docs/2006/metaweb/metaweb00
_e.asp) - In addition, work on the Dublin Core abstract model and DCMI Metadata Terms over the last few years has resulted in a very recent update
(http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/).
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) that metadata pertaining to email will be preserved and protected to the same extent and for the same duration as the email message itself.
Email is, in essence, electronic data. Metadata is data about data. Most metadata pertaining to email operates behind the scenes and is invisible to the email users. Metadata is used to uniquely identify a message, so that it may not be confused with any other message. Metadata indicates what the message is about, what documents were attached to it and may relate it to other emails produced or received by users in a branch, division, program, project or group of users. Metadata can indicate whether a record has been altered or not, and, if so, by whom, or failing that, at which work station.
Metadata identifies where and when an email message was created, by whom, who it was sent to, where it is stored, and how it is formatted, etc. It may also provide a history of migration procedures and actions that have been applied to the message over a lengthy retention period.
Metadata is crucial to establishing the admissibility and credibility of email messages as evidence in legal proceedings and audits.
3.4. Classify (file) email messages systematically and frequently
Email messages should be classified (filed) systematically and regularly, at intervals that are appropriate to the nature of the institution's business (i.e. daily), and in a manner consistent with the classification system adopted by the institution. Email messages should then be moved to a repository designated by the institution.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Users
Rationale
Any email messages and attachments which are to be retained for a prescribed period should be appropriately classified (filed) to facilitate search, retrieval, use and dissemination at a later date.
Some classification systems are subject-based (such as by topic - air transport, GST, historic sites, parks, real estate lease contracts, treaties, etc). More recently there has been a move toward the use of function-based classification (such as by mandate, Department, branch, program, project, etc.), and then by subject.
As to the frequency with which messages should be classified, there is no single interval of time that is universally applicable to all agencies and all employees, contractors or other users. Some authorities on the subject recommend filing email messages as soon as they are read, while the content is fresh in the reader's mind.
Many factors may be considered, such as the need for others within the working group to share information contained in email, or the volume of email that is regularly received by a user. There may also be business considerations pertaining to the work of the institution and any of its individual programs or projects.
It is up to individual institutions to determine what constitutes an appropriate interval for filing email messages and, indeed this interval may vary for different groups or individuals within the institution.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) to use a (function based, subject based, other) system for classifying and filing records and information. The following information applies.
Select one of the following options:
(Option 1) This institution employs an electronic records and documents management system which will automatically limit the number of places where an email message may be filed. Typically a user will have only a limited number of options for filing information, based largely on his or her job, and the programs or projects that are part of the job. However, the user must make the final determination as to where to file records or information. The system will provide filing options from which the employee may select the most appropriate.
(Option 2) The institution does not employ an electronic documents and records management system to limit the number of places where an email message may be filed. The user must determine where to file email messages and attachments. Users should ask their managers to provide them with a list of folders where email messages and attachments should be stored.
3.5. Manage temporary on-line storage of email messages
An email system should be capable of handling incoming and outgoing messages, metadata and attachments, and storing them, temporarily, on-line (within the system itself), until they are manually deleted or moved. At an appropriate interval, files should be moved to a longer-term storage area by a user or system administrator, or by some automated means.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Users
- Network or System Administrators
Rationale
Email management applications typically suffer from degradation of performance if the memory capacity of the system is used at or near capacity. So it is important to move email messages to a repository or storage area where they will not affect the performance of the email system.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) to store a single copy of message, metadata and attachment on an institution-wide database.
Messages are received or created using the host technology of the institution (Lotus, Ms Outlook, other). Messages, metadata and attachments are automatically transferred to a central repository maintained by (name of institution). Once transferred, the sender and all intended recipients have access to the message, as if it were stored online.
Note that system administrators should advise the information manager and a user's manager if the number of messages in the user's account exceed a reasonable folder size limit or time limit. However, a system administrator must not delete messages stored online - not even those that exceed pre-determined folder size limit or time limit - unless the information manager and the user's manager both authorize the deletion.
3.6. Use shared mailboxes, public mailboxes and folders for a single purpose
A shared mailbox should be created to serve just one purpose and should have one owner who sets well-defined rules for others who have access.
Messages that do not serve the purpose of the mailbox should not be stored there. It may be necessary to assign different levels of access to users of the shared mailbox or folder, depending on their role or work assignment.
Public mailboxes should be used for a single or limited purpose and should be managed by one owner who should set well-defined rules
Individual mailboxes may also be shared, to a limited extent, with a small number of others in the user's work group.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Users
- Network or System Administrators
- Information Management Specialists
- Operational Managers
Rationale
Shared mailboxes are designed to provide a single point of contact for a particular service, like boardroom bookings, help desk or query response. Anyone can contact the shared mailbox, but only a restricted few can read or respond to the messages sent to it.
In the case of a help desk, any one of several specialists can open a message and decide what needs to be done. If a worker is away sick or on vacation, the message will still be seen by an authorized party, and acted upon. A group of service providers can use a shared mailbox to see and process a single service request.
An individual mailbox may also be shared. An executive may delegate an assistant who can view and sort messages addressed to the executive. A user may grant read access to others in his or her working group or team, in order to ensure that no critical information is missed while the user is absent.
By default, a public mailbox is open to all users. However a public mailbox is best used by a smaller group, generally less than two dozen (24) users (according to best practices of other governments). Typically, the owner determines who is most likely to have a contribution to make, and invites a limited number of interested parties to participate.
A public mailbox is a community with a specific interest, focused on a particular topic. Members may send a message asking a question addressed to the entire group, and any member is free to respond. Often, a message addressed to the group will generate a series of comments, clarifications, or additional questions that run in a thread that is similar to a conversation.
Messages usually cannot be deleted from public mailboxes unless special privileges are given.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (the institution) that a shared mailbox (must / should) have a single or limited purpose and (must / should) have one owner, who must set well-defined rules:
- The (single or limited) purpose of the mailbox (reserving boardrooms, booking equipment, helpdesk, etc).
- How to identify an email message as having been answered, and what response was provided
- How to identify what follow up action is required, if any
- Who the members are, the level of access they have (read, respond, mark, classify, store, delete)
- Who should answer which messages
- What types of email messages are considered to be records
- Where incoming messages and replies are to be stored (in one folder, or a small number of folders)
- When to delete an email message from the mailbox
The owner of the mailbox and the members who share it have some overlapping responsibilities
- All those with access to shared mailboxes to abide by the stated rules.
- All who have access share responsibility for identifying emails that should be retained as a record
- All who have access are responsible for deleting transient messages.
For shared mailboxes, access should be limited to people who are qualified to answer the email enquiries that will be received.
Users who might need to send enquiries or requests will need to know the email address and the purpose of the mailbox. The address should be easy to find in the departmental or agency email directory, but it may also be promoted on a website or login screen, via broadcast email, or posters, stickers and flyers, in hallways, offices and cubicles, or on a website.
An individual mailbox may also be shared by appointing delegates in the user's work group or team to read and act upon the user's email while the user is absent. Other access rights may be delegated, under certain circumstances
- If the information manager has been consulted and agrees
- If the security officer has been consulted and agrees that there is no significant threat to security or privacy
A public mailbox (must / should) have a single or limited purpose and must have one owner, who must set well-defined rules:
- The (single or limited) purpose of the mailbox (discussion topic or area of interest and related sub-topics)
- How to identify an email message as having been answered, and what response was provided
- How to identify what follow up action is required, if any
- Who the members are, the level of access they have (read, respond)
- How long a message should stay in the public mailbox before being stored or deleted
- How many folders will be used, and what they will contain
The owner of a public mailbox is responsible for managing the records and information it may contain.
- Identifying email messages are considered to be records
- Deciding where messages and replies are to be filed and stored (which folders to put them in)
- The filing system for a public mailbox must be consistent with institution practices.
- The filing system for a public mailbox must use institution naming conventions
- Classifying and storing messages and replies
- Ensuring that messages in the public mailbox are protected and "tamper proof"
- Deleting irrelevant or transient email messages from the mailbox
- Notifying a sender of an irrelevant message that it has been deleted - and why
- Acting as chairperson, to keep the discussion in the public mailbox from straying off-topic
- Closing the public mailbox once it has served its purpose
The owner of the mailbox and the members who share it have some overlapping responsibilities. All those with access to shared mailboxes are to abide by the stated rules. Any email that made a valuable contribution to the discussion should be kept as a record, along with the final conclusions. The discussions that occur in a public mailbox establish the context within which a final decision was made. They must, therefore, be kept as a record of the proceedings.
3.7. Limit the content of email messages to one topic
Users should limit the content of email messages to one topic.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Users
Rationale
Email is the most commonly requested form of evidence used in courts today. Courts expect parties involved in a case to provide all relevant evidence, and only relevant evidence. An email message that addresses more than one topic, if it is used as evidence, may force the court to sift through irrelevant information.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) institution that email messages should be limited to one topic to facilitate filing and research.
3.8. Describe the subject of the message in meaningful terms
Users should describe the subject of email messages in meaningful terms, using keywords that could be used in an electronic search.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Users
Rationale
Email is the most commonly requested form of evidence used in courts today. Courts expect parties involved in a case to provide all relevant evidence, and only relevant evidence. The preferred approach is to locate electronic information like email by conducting various forms of electronic search. It is quite common to search subject lines of email messages to locate relevant information for the courts. This is much faster and more efficient than searching the content of the message.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) that users should describe the subject of email messages in meaningful terms, using keywords that may be used in an electronic search to locate documents on a specific topic.
3.9. Provide for indexing of email messages
Institutions should provide for (word) indexing of email messages.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Network or System Administrators
- Information Management Specialists
Rationale
There is little advantage in having a vast store of email messages if there is no efficient way to search them. There are two ways to go about indexing email messages.
- There are applications that will do full text indexing of email messages and these may be appropriate to some institutions. However, such systems are relatively expensive and they require a substantial amount of customization if they are to sort messages into a pre-defined classification scheme. Without customization, such systems will simply create another classification scheme which may have little or no relevance to the nature of the institution's way of doing business.
- Another way to index messages is to fit them into a pre-defined classification scheme, using a controlled vocabulary.
A controlled vocabulary limits the classification choices. Thus if an email message originates from the Human Resources Branch of a department, it should be classified under Human Resources Branch, not Human Resources or Personnel or HR. To some extent, metadata can be used in classification. For example, simply by logging on, a user can be identified as working within a particular department, branch or program.
Generally, it will also be necessary to identify the subject classification of the message. This is not to be confused with the subject line on the message. The subject line might state "Training Schedule." But that might not be the way to classify the message. Some systems may be configured to prompt the user to save a message and may also be configured to present the user with a limited number of subject area choices. Thus, a training developer working in the Human Resources Branch might be working on three projects, one of which might be "Email Management Training" - which might be the best place to file the message about the "Training Schedule."
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) that email messages will be indexed using (a controlled vocabulary / an automated classification system).
Example(s):
(Provide examples of controlled vocabulary that are relevant to the institution, and describe their implications).
3.10. Provide for threading of email messages
Institutions should provide for threading of email messages. Threading is the process whereby an information management system tracks relationships between messages in a series along with related metadata and attachments.
Party or Parties Responsible for Implementing and/or Applying the Recommendation:
- Network or System Administrators
- Information Management Specialists
Rationale
A thread involves an initial email message followed by a sequence of replies. The thread may contain messages that are in the nature of questions and answers, points made in a discussion or a decision making process. Legal and audit proceedings regularly require evidence about a particular decision as well as all of the correspondence leading up to the decision. Thus, there must be a way to preserve the thread of a sequence of email messages. It must be possible to identify and locate all relevant email messages that are part of a thread of messages and preserve the sequence of the messages.
Sample Policy Statement
If this recommended action is applicable, consider using the following sample policy statement.
If not, indicate what alternative action, if any, to apply.
It is the policy of (name of institution) that threads of email messages will be preserved to link email messages in a series. A series may involve an initial email message followed by a sequence of replies related to the same query, discussion or decision making process.
