Imagine if Gmail, Outlook, or Yahoo were incapable of grouping email conversations together. Without conversation grouping, or email threading, you might be able to sort by subject, but the software would not understand that “RE:” and “FW:” should be disregarded. The forwards would be in one group, the replies would all follow, and the original message could be anywhere. If two conversations had identical subjects, even if they were between entirely different people, you would need to manually read the email contents to discover which message belongs to which conversation.
If you had an alternative, would you ever consider using the email software described above?
It does sort of boggle the mind that there are people in the eDiscovery industry who just want to look at email in chronological order.
No, you don’t, you just don’t know how else to ask for it. It should be threaded, so that you can deal with one conversation at a time. Studies have shown, time and time again, that we work much faster when we can focus on one topic at a time. Why would we purposefully do something that makes us flit around from subject to subject on every email?
The conference is winding down, and we’re traveling for the holiday weekend, so this is the last night I’m going to collect these links from the ILTA conference. I’ll leave the RSS feed rolling to catch the various post-conference thoughts that are posted around the blogosphere as folks head back home. At some point late…
This seems like it should have been an obvious short-coming, and yet, it also seems like no one thought about it: “Risk assessments are pitched as “race-neutral,” replacing human judgment—subjective, fraught with implicit bias—with objective, scientific criteria. Trouble is, the most accurate tools draw from existing criminal justice data: what happened to large numbers of…
“It’s worth noting, as Fusion editor Ethan Chiel did in the aforementioned episode of Press Play, that the practice of storing information in “the cloud” is a nebulous one. “The ‘cloud’ is just someone else’s hard drive,” he said, emphasizing that information and content we think of as “safe” simply because it’s located on a…
Take Control of Your Learning at Work Five Tips for Staying Relevant in Your eDiscovery Role Stop The Insanity. Kill The Billable Hour. Interview: Wendy King of FTI Consulting on managing international eDiscovery with RelativityOne Balancing the Advantages and Security Risks of Collaboration Tools in the Legal Sector How law firms are becoming tech firms,…
Part of my desire to use Ubuntu on this desktop was to see just how far Linux on the desktop has come since the last time I tried it out. (On top of just learning some more about using Linux in general.) So I’ve been keeping a very close eye on just how often I…
Ed Bott raises an interesting question about people using PCs that don’t meet the requirements in terms of hardware security for Windows 11 but who own otherwise perfectly fine computers. In 2025, when Microsoft stops patching Windows 10, how many computers will still be out there, in use, connected to the internet, and vulnerable.
But in the quote above, Ed raises another point that maybe we should be thinking about more. What happens to all the hardware that is no longer supported as technology advances? It ends up in a landfill. That’s not good. That’s not even acceptable.
