ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.Extract from article by Craig Ball
Beth Patterson’s idea deserved more credit than it got. It really is a trivial technical problem, and one that could be resolved without much programming or politics.
Then, why don’t we have a proven means to uniquely identify messages across vendors? I suspect it’s due to a lack of leadership and validation. Insofar as I’m aware, no one has published a standard methodology for cross-vendor identification or established that it works. Certainly, no one has managed to get something accepted as a de facto industry standard, in the nature of, say, the Concordance load file format or EDRM XML. Instead, we invent reasons why it’s just too darn hard.
To be clear, any e-discovery tool worth its salt employs a method to hash and deduplicate messages; unfortunately, they don’t employ the same method. Each tool approaches the task in a slightly different way and, when it comes to comparisons based on hash values, even the most minute variation in the data hashed generates a markedly different hash value. This article looks at how to get everybody on the same page when it comes to generating consistent, hash-based message identifiers across vendors and matters.
Read the complete article at Cross-Matter & -Vendor Message ID
