Subject: cc: re: Further agreement with Alex

From: Ralph Patterson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 16:50:08 -0500

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998  4:04 p, Pat Egen wrote:
>
>Date: 6-Oct-98 16:04:40 -0500
>Pat Egen
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Further agreement with Alex
>
>I took a few extra days to do a quick survey of random companies that are
> part
>of the SHARE users group.  In talking with 9 companies (totalling over
> 350,000
>email ids) the general concensus is there needs to be security over calendars
>that ensures granularity such as many of the group are recommending.
>
>General thoughts from them were:
>1. Allowing free-time search should be an open process

***** Comment from Ralph Patterson on 10/06/1998  at 4:34 p CST *****
It creates a basic security concern expressed in the beginning of this 
process, namely, even free busy schedules could be used to ascertain 
private information. e.g., by viewing key players, perhaps one that 
publishes specifics, or uses an unsecured server, others schedules could 
be deduced. Even free/busy searches need some way to limit access.
***** End of comment *****

>2. Control over view needs to be more atomic than at the main organizational
>level.  I.e. individuals within not only an organization, but within a
>department need to have the capability to control who can/can not see their
>calendars.

***** Comment from Ralph Patterson on 10/06/1998  at 4:39 p CST *****
Doesn't granularity to the user level accomplish this? I would assume 
that since many current scheduling packages allow this level of control, 
users will be hesitant to give up that feature. 
***** End of comment *****

>3. Update capability must be in the control of the individual user and most
>companies said only the owner of the calendar entry would have update
> capability
>over the net.  Two  companies (one, a very large organization)stated they
> would
>prefer no updates over the Internet, even from the owner of the calendar.

***** Comment from Ralph Patterson on 10/06/1998  at 4:41 p CST *****
If we can't secure the updating of information, should we just abandon 
the project? Limiting who can update the calendar will "break" many 
scheduling packages (mine included). One of the key issues to our user 
base is the ability for secretaries, supervisors, etc. to add items to 
others' calendars. I understand your comment to mean this should not be 
allowable. If that is an accurate characterization, we can't support it. 
I'm starting to get the impression that the people surveyed were MIS 
people.
***** End of comment *****

>4. All agreed there should not be a generic open access to calendaring. If
> there
>was, all companies said they would not use Internet Calendaring access.

***** Comment from Ralph Patterson on 10/06/1998  at 4:45 p CST *****
That would be no access control. Correct? I don't think anyone expects us 
to get a specification done that would ONLY allow open access. Yet I 
believe that allowing full access to a calendar should be possible if 
desired by the owner.
***** End of comment *****

[Stuff deleted]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
LAN-ACES, Inc.
[email-masked]
Voice: (281)-890-9787..Sales: (800)-LAN-ACES
Support: (281) 890-9786..FAX: (281)-890-9731
http://www.lan-aces.com
[email-masked] .... [email-masked]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Office-Logic Groupware (Formerly Right Hand Man)
Version 4.x information available on our web site!
Ask your sales rep about Competitive Upgrades!!!!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Software Piracy and the Law
---------------------------
United States law prohibits duplicating software for profit, 
making multiple copies for use by different users within an 
organization, and giving an unauthorized copy to another 
individual. If caught with pirated software, you or your 
company may be tried under both civil and criminal law.

A civil action may be instituted for injunction, actual damages 
(including infringer's profits), or statutory damages up to 
$100,000 per infringement. Criminal penalties for copyright 
infringement include fine up to $250,000 and jail terms up to 
five years, or both.

Have a nice day!
----------------------------