At work we have a specialist electronic folder system (Meridio) which sits as an adjunct to Microsoft Outlook. This folder system is used to archive files of all types i.e E-mails, Microsoft Office Documents, Adobe Acrobat PDF's.

I've been tasked to transfer over 1000 individual files (Mainly E-mails and PDFs) to another government department.

Obviously, I like to do this in one action by dragging and dropping the folder containing the files from Meridio, onto a CD.

I was able to produce a CD using this methos and this read Ok on machines in my place of work. However, when it was sent to the other Government department they reported that they could not open the file getting the message "File type xnk not recognised".

The other government department reported that they were using the same Operating system as us i.e XP profesional, but a later build SP3 and had comparable Microsoft Office package.

I suspect that what's happening is that the other government department XP installation hasn't been set-up to support the xnk file format probably because they don't run Meridio. Their local tech bods and the ones at our end could not help.

This very same problem has been reported on the web as occuring in the wider world and the recommended remedy refers to a facility for changing the file suffix by saving the content under a different format in Windows Explorer. However, this involves re-saving the file under a different file type and, guess what, its just this type of activity i.e creating file types additional to those that are loaded onto the servers, that is n't permitted on our system (Greyed-out) - presumably for security reasons.

. I'm told that there is not even the facility for adminstrators to override the file creation restrictions or to run a file conversion utility within their sub domain to facilitate the mass transfer of files. That's despite the fact that both depatments have access to the same cross departemnt secure network.

So, I'm now in the position where I'm have to copy and send the individual files in blocks of 50 as attachments to E-mails - that's 22 E-Mails.

Any ideas how I could get round the file restriction and make a transfer in one go by using a folder ?

Nick

Edited 20 May, 201016 yr by Clunkclick

IIRC, xnk are shortcuts and not the actual files

Backup the mails to CD/DVD and then leave them on a train.

Somebody will nick them and then offer them for sale. At which point the new dept can buy them off the criminals with the condition they are in a format they can import them in.

Probably cheaper too :p

IIRC, xnk are shortcuts and not the actual files

The xnk shortcut manifests itself on our system as a folder icon. If you click on the folder icon it reveals the individual files in normal Outlook page listing.

The attraction was that I was able to drag and drop the the folder (And underlying files) in one action onto a CD.

Perhaps i need to check with the other GD that the security restrictions that apply to file creation on our secure system does so on theirs - I strongly suspect it does otherwise you would have inconsistent security standards as between bodies using the same Government Secure Internet (GSI).

There might be a slim chance that the remedy available on th web will be available to them.

http://www.petri.co.il/error_opening_xnk_link_with_outlook_2007.htm

Nick

xnk files are definately shortcuts - try dragging an outlook folder into a folder in windows and you get an exchange shortcut, you can then open this file with notepad to see the location the shortcut refers to.

How big is the data?

Can you not access their systems and send over that way?

How big is the data?

Can you not access their systems and send over that way?

Tried determining how much data there is in total, but the system suppresses the normal windows reporting function in respect of the folder - unlike the files, but I ain't going to poll each file. There are about 6 PDF files and the rest are E-mails out of a total of 1056 items. So say each E-mail is 2k then I've probably got 2.5Mb worth of files.

Asked the tech bods whether there was in existence a facility to VPC tunnel either way (It was like speaking to Carlton the doorman in Rhoda). Unfortunately, no such animal exists. Secure environment, so the consequences of implementing a measure like this have to be carefully considered and this means a looong lead time. My requirement (as they all are) is urgent, so this route's a non -starter. Further, in the current climate. there's not the money there to even think about putting foward a business case to our financiers. The IT provider is a contractor and wants money up front.

Also, I have to say that in the 12 years I've been with the organisation, the number of times our branch has had direct dealings with another Government department can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Nevertheless, I can imagine other branches, perhaps, more highly placed, where a high speed broadband connection for data and comms traffic with other GDs would be a boon and that would include the appropriate security apparatus postioned at each inlet/outlet to the high speed band. Perhaps it does exist and we're just too grunt lowly to access it. You never know in our place. Certainly the tech bods,when speaking to me,deny all knowledge. Why a facility like this couldn't be made availble to the local divisional system admin people is beyond me. It would be "Spend to save".

Any way, I've had to start doing it the grunt stupid way, transferring the E-mails in batches of 50 attached to E-mails - transferring to disk was just too problematic and what's more, our in-house stationery store had run -out of CD-R's (cause they run the stock level so low) and I had to cadge some from the principal facility management contractor on site. Unbelievable. So after 4 hours (Our It system is unbelievably slow) and many interuptions, I reached the 9 mails sent stage (450 attachments) , I find that I can't send any more e-mails 'cause the recipient's mailbox is full and she's decamped for the evening and can't be reached. That's another 5 hours to complete the task tommorrow.

9 hours to transfer 2.5 Mbs. Outstanding.

What a way to run modern Government. There we were 5 years ago, when the lightly tanned vicar of St Albions was telling us that all government would be fully electronic in 2005 - this branch has only just barely managed to achieve the minimum this year. And the result achieved is next to shambolic.

And then you read in the paper that some footballer has commanded a transfer fee of £30 million. Strange set of economic priorities, transfer fees or national security. I know what I'd Bl**dy tax.

A casual observer to the televisual political Ant and Dec show that we've been treated to in the weeks since the election would be convinced that we were in Utopia or, at worst, just round the corner from it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nick

Edited 20 May, 201016 yr by Clunkclick

Are you on the GCSX yet?

You could securely send the emails over that (as long as you're both connected).

Otherwise I'd speak with your info security bod if you have one. Or be very sure you are not sending any personal, sensitive or protectively marked content.

Remember there is an aggregation factor in there too.

I wouldn't like to be the one who posted an unencrypted CD that gets lost a la HMRC when the ICO drops a £500k fine. And he's looking for victims.

Encryption is your friend.

Edited 20 May, 201016 yr by Aspman

Are you on the GCSX yet?

You could securely send the emails over that (as long as you're both connected).

Otherwise I'd speak with your info security bod if you have one. Or be very sure you are not sending any personal, sensitive or protectively marked content.

Remember there is an aggregation factor in there too.

I wouldn't like to be the one who posted an unencrypted CD that gets lost a la HMRC when the ICO drops a £500k fine. And he's looking for victims.

Encryption is your friend.

The "Carlton the doorman" I spoke to on Dii helpdesk didn't mention GCSX. But the people I was dealing with had a presence on GSI and e-mails were sent to their GSI addresses.

Anyhow, sort approval from the local organisation security bod and asked for advice on alternative (Quicker) means of transfer. Still awaiting advice.

Couldn't wait as a third party is waiting for an opinion from the reciipient of the transfer on the information sent, and I was assured by dii advice that GSI would be secure for the stuff I was sending.

Its not so much the security side that was worrying me bu the sheer inadequacy of the network terminals and the software to deal with a moderate data transfer in terms of process and speed.

the major part of my day has been spent waiting for an application to unfreeze itself whilst a background function clears processing. Unbelievably frustrating.

So, did it the hard way. Sent 30 E-mails with 30 -50 attachments each. Average total of attachments per E-mail 7MB (Network max 10MB per mail) So 210MB in total sent. Had to keep a start date/finish date record of each batch sent so I could reconcile the parts sentt with the totallity of the original electronic record.

Stopped at 20:00. All but complete. Data transmitted over GSI and got e-mail receipts for all mails sent, so I can prove they went to the correct address.

I know two of three e-mails failed to deliver due to oversize - e-mails grow to greater than the sum of their displayed component values (Some sort of data overhead for attachments) , so I'll have to re-send. Requested confimation from recipient of serials not received.

I'm dreading the next stage, which undoubtedly could involve the recall of numerous paper files from archive and their photocopying. I anticipate that this will be necessary because some events in the matter under consideration will probably pre-date the start of the electronic filing system and because the electronic filing system has been allowed to evolve in a tottally split-arse way, it isn't comprehensive in what it includes in the period it covers. Because document scanners were not introduced at the time the electronic filing system was introduced it meant that the only documents saved electronically were in-house stuff and e-mails and attachments received through e-mail from external correspondents. Incoming paper mail from external correspondents went straight onto the paper files. So you were and are running two filing systems in parallel and although scanners have now been introduced, following a move to a new building, they are de-centralised within teams, without a decent sheet feed capacity, and so don't encourage systematic and comprehensive scanning of incoming mail.The decision as to whether an incoming paper document is added to the electronic filing system is down to the individual sections, so no consistency there. It wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't the set-up through out the whole of the ministry.

God help anyone instituting legal proceedings - all they are going to get is lies and evasions 'cause the filing system is pants. I suspect the third parties must know that.

Anyway, i will wait for my next set of life force affirming instructions.

Nick

Edited 20 May, 201016 yr by Clunkclick

GSI will have been fine as long as you are also on GSi or GCSX/GSX.

OGC (or Buying Solutions as they have branded themselves after the last logo was a disaster) have a large file transfer service.

Just be glad you're not getting slapped about by FOI.

Your should propose an EDRMS, that'll keep you employed for the next 50 years.

GSI will have been fine as long as you are also on GSi or GCSX/GSX.

OGC (or Buying Solutions as they have branded themselves after the last logo was a disaster) have a large file transfer service.

Just be glad you're not getting slapped about by FOI.

Your should propose an EDRMS, that'll keep you employed for the next 50 years.

Only 4 years is required - till retirement. Ho hah !

Nick

Why did OGC change their name?

£14k that cost us the tax payers.

Why did OGC change their name?

£14k that cost us the tax payers.

You could make the observation that even this was miles (Air ?) cheaper than the British Airways change of corporate image in the early '90s which the handbag- wielding one didn't approve of.

Nick