<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does an employees use of email affect compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://simplicato.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/does-an-employees-use-of-email-affect-compliance-with-sarbanes-oxley/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://simplicato.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/does-an-employees-use-of-email-affect-compliance-with-sarbanes-oxley/</link>
	<description>Latest news, commentary, and updates on email archiving and email compliance.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:01:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Amir</title>
		<link>http://simplicato.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/does-an-employees-use-of-email-affect-compliance-with-sarbanes-oxley/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>Amir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://simplicato.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/does-an-employees-use-of-email-affect-compliance-with-sarbanes-oxley/#comment-29</guid>
		<description>I am amazed at how an article like this make it to the mainstream and creates a perception of &quot;over-reaching&quot; in regards to SOX. While there was meaningful change required by and would have benefited from the implementation of SOX requirements, articles like these are truly a disservice since they misrepresent the compliance requirements. To begin, what is the connection of emails to financial statement misstatements that are not only material but also can not be prevented and detected.

That is  a very high bar - associating the exchange of email jokes and requiring that they be &quot;controlled&quot; because it is a &quot;SOX requirement&quot; does not only disengage organizations that are trying to do that right thing; in some cases, it can take them off course as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am amazed at how an article like this make it to the mainstream and creates a perception of &#8220;over-reaching&#8221; in regards to SOX. While there was meaningful change required by and would have benefited from the implementation of SOX requirements, articles like these are truly a disservice since they misrepresent the compliance requirements. To begin, what is the connection of emails to financial statement misstatements that are not only material but also can not be prevented and detected.</p>
<p>That is  a very high bar &#8211; associating the exchange of email jokes and requiring that they be &#8220;controlled&#8221; because it is a &#8220;SOX requirement&#8221; does not only disengage organizations that are trying to do that right thing; in some cases, it can take them off course as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
