Nowadays, the problem isn't really so much how you do this, but rather is the legal morass surrounding it. The "How" is easy: with sendmail you can use procmail recipes or even milters to squirrel away copies of incoming and outgoing mail. Commercial products like Kerio Mail Server have direct support for archiving incoming or outgoing emails.
Some companies have legal need to do this. Sarbanes-Oxley may require it for many companies, as more and more do business by email. On the other hand, privacy laws, particularly with regard to medical records, are more stringent than ever. So, let's say we have a company that deals with stock transactions, and the SEC or Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to archive email. OK, now an internal employee sends a note to their doctor concerning a work place accident. Is it legal to archive that? Is it legal to read it? I sure wouldn't know, but it's the kind of thing you had better know the answer to before you turn on archiving. At http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200503/pij_03_08_05a.html, this subject is discussed in the context of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and it is noted that:
information maintained that is not required for compliance does not serve the company and has the potential to be evidentiary
Good luck trying to algorithmically determine which email is required for compliance. We can't even filter spam with 100% accuracy; how could you expect to figure out whether storing a particular piece of email was necessary to keep you out of trouble or vice-versa?

Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
Click here to add your comments
Sat Jul 30 14:27:05 2005: Subject: BigDumbDinosaur
We can't even filter spam with 100 accuracy; how could you expect to figure out whether storing a particular piece of email was necessary to keep you out of trouble or vice-versa?
Obviously, you can't. The solution is to create and enforce a stringent policy of no personal use of company E-mail facilities, and to monitor traffic to assure compliance. Doing so would be considered due diligence on the part of the employer, assuring compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, and would also give the company legal standing in terminating any employee who used company E-mail to communicate personal matters (e.g., with his doctor about a workplace injury). It's a very Draconian approach, to be sure, but in these hyper-litigious times, very necessary. One of my clients does exactly what I have described and to date, their policy has survived legal challenge.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a prime example of our legislators reacting to a perceived problem without fully understanding the consequences of their actions. Sarbanes-Oxley also somewhat contrevenes case law regarding business E-mail, in which it has been established that a company has the right to monitor and, if necessary, censor E-mail that passes through its facilities. In that respect, E-mail should be treated no differently than the office telephone system: it is a company asset and therefore its use can be regulated by company policy.
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar