Microsoft is preparing a consequential expansion of Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management (DLM): administrators will be able to archive OneDrive and SharePoint files through retention policy workflows, rather than treating retention and archive storage as largely separate operational disciplines. The feature, listed as Microsoft 365 Roadmap ID 562345, remains in development and is targeted for general availability in September 2026 across GCC, GCC High, and DoD environments. Microsoft’s roadmap entry frames the change as retention-based file archiving that moves inactive content into lower-cost storage while preserving compliance discoverability and improving the relevance of Microsoft 365 Copilot responses.
For organizations that have accumulated years of project material, department libraries, employee files, and compliance-bound records, the appeal is obvious. A document often has to be retained long after it stops being useful for day-to-day collaboration. Until recently, IT teams had to make an uncomfortable choice: leave everything active and expensive, archive an entire site even when some material remained active, or build imperfect manual processes around folders, libraries, labels, and storage reporting.
The new Purview DLM capability points toward a more mature answer: retain the file, preserve its governance posture, but remove it from the active collaboration layer when its operational value has faded.
That is an important distinction. This is not conventional deletion, and it is not merely a storage administration feature. It is a policy-driven attempt to join together content lifecycle management, SharePoint storage economics, compliance obligations, eDiscovery readiness, and Copilot information quality.
Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management has traditionally focused on two central outcomes: retain information for a defined period, or delete it when the organization no longer needs it. Microsoft describes retention policies as the foundation of DLM, capable of retaining content indefinitely or for a defined period and, where configured, permanently deleting it after that period. Microsoft’s DLM documentation also emphasizes that eliminating data without business value can reduce risk and an organization’s attack surface.
The new archive action introduces a more nuanced lifecycle:
A completed construction project may require designs, approvals, correspondence, and engineering reports to remain available for years. A legal department may need prior contract material preserved. Human resources teams may have historic employee records subject to statutory schedules. Finance organizations may retain audit evidence well beyond the period in which it is routinely consulted.
In each case, permanently deleting the content is unacceptable. Yet continuing to present it as ordinary active content can create storage pressure, noisy search results, and a less useful data estate for AI-assisted work.
Microsoft’s existing file-level archive preview established the technical direction. It allows individual documents in an active SharePoint site to move to a colder storage tier, rather than requiring administrators to archive an entire site. Microsoft’s March 2026 announcement described that approach as a way to preserve the active portions of a site while archiving older project files, completed-event material, and reference documents that must be kept but are rarely opened.
The upcoming Purview change matters because it promises to put that archive mechanism inside a retention-policy-driven governance model. In practical terms, administrators should be able to define when content is no longer active enough to justify premium collaboration storage, while still treating it as governed organizational information.
A five-year-old project library may be legally important but operationally irrelevant. An employee’s older OneDrive material might contain records that must remain preserved after a role change, business reorganization, or departure. Keeping all that data in the active tier creates a false equivalence between current working material and historical information.
Microsoft 365 Archive is intended to break that equivalence. Microsoft says archive storage provides a cold storage tier for inactive SharePoint files and sites, retaining the same broad security, searchability, and compliance standards while reducing the cost profile associated with inactive content. The Microsoft 365 Archive overview describes the service as a way to retain aging information while continuing to manage it through familiar Microsoft 365 governance capabilities.
The storage economics need careful interpretation, however. File-level archiving does not make data disappear. It changes how it is classified at the tenant level: active SharePoint storage falls, while archived storage rises. Microsoft’s archive pricing documentation says archived and active storage are considered together against the tenant’s included or licensed storage allocation, with archive charges applying when the combined storage footprint exceeds that allocation. Microsoft’s pricing model documentation also notes that archived files in active sites are counted as archive storage, while files within an archived site are not double-counted separately.
That means this feature is not an automatic savings engine for every tenant. Organizations with abundant unused SharePoint capacity may see limited immediate financial benefit. Organizations paying for additional active storage, by contrast, could find the archive tier substantially more attractive.
But many real-world sites are mixed. A product team may need current specifications and active plans in the same site as documentation from releases completed years ago. A legal team may have current matters alongside closed case records. A finance workspace may combine this quarter’s operating documents with many years of evidence files.
In that setting, archiving the entire site is too disruptive. Leaving the site untouched can be unnecessarily costly and cluttered. File-level archiving offers a more granular tool, and Purview policy integration has the potential to make it systematic rather than dependent on administrators or end users remembering to make the right manual decision.
Microsoft’s archive management guidance confirms that file-level archiving is separate from site-level archive and can be administered at the tenant or site level. The management documentation says SharePoint administrators and global administrators can enable or disable file archive across the tenant, restrict it to selected sites, and control the default behavior for new sites.
The retention-policy integration could therefore help organizations define why content should be archived, while SharePoint archive controls define where the capability may be used.
That distinction matters because normal collaboration behavior can conflict with preservation obligations. Users rename, revise, move, overwrite, and delete documents continuously. A proper retention configuration is designed to preserve qualifying content even when users act on it in the ordinary course of work.
For SharePoint and OneDrive, Microsoft uses the Preservation Hold library as a secure, hidden location to retain copies when policy-covered content is edited or deleted. Microsoft’s retention documentation explains that copies for SharePoint and OneDrive content are held in that library, which is not ordinarily visible to users and contributes to the site’s storage quota.
This architecture is crucial. A policy-driven archive action should not be confused with a way to bypass retention. Archived files remain subject to the applicable governance framework; archive is intended to change the content’s storage and availability posture, not erase the organization’s evidentiary obligations.
Microsoft’s SharePoint and OneDrive retention guidance explicitly says that archived SharePoint sites are supported by retention configurations. The workload-specific retention documentation also explains that content can remain available for compliance use even as retention policy timers, labels, records controls, and deletion rules govern its lifecycle.
That distinction becomes especially important where organizations use:
That means the future quality of a retention-based archive deployment will depend on good information architecture. An organization that has never defined what makes a document inactive, which files are records, how long they must be kept, or who owns disposition decisions will not solve those gaps merely by adding an archive destination.
An obsolete sales deck, expired policy, superseded procedure, or old engineering plan might remain accurate in a historical sense while being harmful in a current-work context. The more such material crowds the active content estate, the greater the risk that users receive answers grounded in information that is no longer operationally authoritative.
Microsoft says archived files and sites are removed from Copilot’s active index, while remaining available through archive-aware search and compliance workflows. The Microsoft 365 Archive overview describes this as Copilot optimization, with archived content excluded from Copilot training and active relevance signals.
The terminology here needs precision. Removing archived content from Copilot’s active index does not mean that content ceases to exist, loses its permissions model, or becomes undiscoverable for permitted archival and compliance searches. It means the content is no longer treated as everyday active knowledge for the purpose of producing routine Copilot responses.
But this also introduces a clear governance risk: an overbroad archive policy may reduce Copilot’s access to information that is old but still operationally significant.
Some content ages without becoming obsolete. Product safety documentation, architectural decisions, long-term customer commitments, intellectual property records, and institutional knowledge may be older than a policy’s inactivity threshold yet vital to current work. If that information is archived automatically, users may assume Copilot’s answer is complete when it is actually limited to the active corpus.
The right objective is therefore not “archive everything old.” It is to distinguish between:
Microsoft’s current general file-level archive documentation focuses on SharePoint sites and identifies file archive as currently available only there. The Microsoft 365 Archive overview also warns that copied or moved archived files may not always display their archived state in the OneDrive interface. The roadmap item is therefore notable because it specifically describes policy-based archiving for both OneDrive and SharePoint files. Microsoft’s roadmap entry
That broader coverage could be valuable for organizations managing departed-user content and long-lived personal workspaces. Microsoft’s retention guidance states that, when a user leaves, OneDrive files under retention policy or label remain subject to those settings for the applicable retention period and continue to be discoverable through Content Search and eDiscovery. Microsoft’s SharePoint and OneDrive retention guidance makes clear that retention does not simply end with account deprovisioning.
A retention-based archive action could give administrators a more orderly way to handle retained, low-activity OneDrive material without forcing it to remain in the active tier indefinitely.
This is not a minor usability concern. A policy that moves files automatically can generate help desk incidents if employees see unexpected open errors, missing sync behavior, confusing archive indicators, or app-specific failures.
Organizations should prepare communications that explain:
That restriction should shape policy design. If a file regularly moves between active work and dormant status, it may be a poor candidate for automatic archival. The archive tier is best suited to genuinely cold information, not files whose activity cycles every few weeks.
Administrators should avoid promising a simple “X terabytes removed” result. The more accurate metric is likely to be active storage reclassified to archive storage, together with any resulting reduction in premium storage exposure.
The arrival of an archive action makes lifecycle policy more powerful, but it also raises the stakes of testing. Administrators should evaluate the archive outcome against realistic combinations of:
Potential candidates include:
A sensible sequence may be:
Testing should also include search, eDiscovery, export, reactivation, and end-user access flows. Microsoft says archived content can remain searchable in archive-aware SharePoint and OneDrive search experiences, with permission trimming still applied. Microsoft’s archive search documentation confirms that archived results can be located by users through archive-specific search filters.
An exception process is particularly important for content that is old but authoritative. Without one, users may resort to unofficial copies, duplicated libraries, or unmanaged local storage to avoid automated archive behavior.
The strongest aspect of the announcement is its attempt to align four priorities that are too often managed separately:
If implemented with that discipline, retention-based file archiving can give Microsoft 365 administrators something they have long needed: a credible way to keep important data without letting inactive data dominate the active workplace.
For organizations that have accumulated years of project material, department libraries, employee files, and compliance-bound records, the appeal is obvious. A document often has to be retained long after it stops being useful for day-to-day collaboration. Until recently, IT teams had to make an uncomfortable choice: leave everything active and expensive, archive an entire site even when some material remained active, or build imperfect manual processes around folders, libraries, labels, and storage reporting.
The new Purview DLM capability points toward a more mature answer: retain the file, preserve its governance posture, but remove it from the active collaboration layer when its operational value has faded.
That is an important distinction. This is not conventional deletion, and it is not merely a storage administration feature. It is a policy-driven attempt to join together content lifecycle management, SharePoint storage economics, compliance obligations, eDiscovery readiness, and Copilot information quality.
Overview: From Retain-or-Delete to a Three-Stage Lifecycle
Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management has traditionally focused on two central outcomes: retain information for a defined period, or delete it when the organization no longer needs it. Microsoft describes retention policies as the foundation of DLM, capable of retaining content indefinitely or for a defined period and, where configured, permanently deleting it after that period. Microsoft’s DLM documentation also emphasizes that eliminating data without business value can reduce risk and an organization’s attack surface.The new archive action introduces a more nuanced lifecycle:
- Active content remains available for collaboration, editing, synchronization, search, and ordinary business processes.
- Archived content remains retained and discoverable, but is moved to a colder storage tier because it is no longer expected to support regular work.
- Disposed content can eventually be deleted when the retention schedule and disposition requirements allow it.
A completed construction project may require designs, approvals, correspondence, and engineering reports to remain available for years. A legal department may need prior contract material preserved. Human resources teams may have historic employee records subject to statutory schedules. Finance organizations may retain audit evidence well beyond the period in which it is routinely consulted.
In each case, permanently deleting the content is unacceptable. Yet continuing to present it as ordinary active content can create storage pressure, noisy search results, and a less useful data estate for AI-assisted work.
Microsoft’s existing file-level archive preview established the technical direction. It allows individual documents in an active SharePoint site to move to a colder storage tier, rather than requiring administrators to archive an entire site. Microsoft’s March 2026 announcement described that approach as a way to preserve the active portions of a site while archiving older project files, completed-event material, and reference documents that must be kept but are rarely opened.
The upcoming Purview change matters because it promises to put that archive mechanism inside a retention-policy-driven governance model. In practical terms, administrators should be able to define when content is no longer active enough to justify premium collaboration storage, while still treating it as governed organizational information.
Why Retention-Based Archiving Matters for SharePoint and OneDrive
The operational cost of “just keep everything”
SharePoint Online and OneDrive have become default repositories for nearly every kind of business file: Office documents, PDFs, recordings, design assets, transcripts, exported reports, collaboration artifacts, and more. That broad adoption is useful, but it creates a recurring governance problem: content growth is relentless, while the business value of any individual file changes over time.A five-year-old project library may be legally important but operationally irrelevant. An employee’s older OneDrive material might contain records that must remain preserved after a role change, business reorganization, or departure. Keeping all that data in the active tier creates a false equivalence between current working material and historical information.
Microsoft 365 Archive is intended to break that equivalence. Microsoft says archive storage provides a cold storage tier for inactive SharePoint files and sites, retaining the same broad security, searchability, and compliance standards while reducing the cost profile associated with inactive content. The Microsoft 365 Archive overview describes the service as a way to retain aging information while continuing to manage it through familiar Microsoft 365 governance capabilities.
The storage economics need careful interpretation, however. File-level archiving does not make data disappear. It changes how it is classified at the tenant level: active SharePoint storage falls, while archived storage rises. Microsoft’s archive pricing documentation says archived and active storage are considered together against the tenant’s included or licensed storage allocation, with archive charges applying when the combined storage footprint exceeds that allocation. Microsoft’s pricing model documentation also notes that archived files in active sites are counted as archive storage, while files within an archived site are not double-counted separately.
That means this feature is not an automatic savings engine for every tenant. Organizations with abundant unused SharePoint capacity may see limited immediate financial benefit. Organizations paying for additional active storage, by contrast, could find the archive tier substantially more attractive.
Avoiding the all-or-nothing site archive decision
Before file-level archive, site-level archiving was often the main option. That works well for an entirely completed SharePoint site: an acquisition workspace, a closed project, a retired departmental portal, or a historic program site with no expectation of active editing.But many real-world sites are mixed. A product team may need current specifications and active plans in the same site as documentation from releases completed years ago. A legal team may have current matters alongside closed case records. A finance workspace may combine this quarter’s operating documents with many years of evidence files.
In that setting, archiving the entire site is too disruptive. Leaving the site untouched can be unnecessarily costly and cluttered. File-level archiving offers a more granular tool, and Purview policy integration has the potential to make it systematic rather than dependent on administrators or end users remembering to make the right manual decision.
Microsoft’s archive management guidance confirms that file-level archiving is separate from site-level archive and can be administered at the tenant or site level. The management documentation says SharePoint administrators and global administrators can enable or disable file archive across the tenant, restrict it to selected sites, and control the default behavior for new sites.
The retention-policy integration could therefore help organizations define why content should be archived, while SharePoint archive controls define where the capability may be used.
Compliance Is the Core Value Proposition
Retention does not end when a file is archived
The most important promise in Microsoft’s roadmap description is not lower storage cost. It is that archived material remains discoverable and does not sacrifice compliance controls.That distinction matters because normal collaboration behavior can conflict with preservation obligations. Users rename, revise, move, overwrite, and delete documents continuously. A proper retention configuration is designed to preserve qualifying content even when users act on it in the ordinary course of work.
For SharePoint and OneDrive, Microsoft uses the Preservation Hold library as a secure, hidden location to retain copies when policy-covered content is edited or deleted. Microsoft’s retention documentation explains that copies for SharePoint and OneDrive content are held in that library, which is not ordinarily visible to users and contributes to the site’s storage quota.
This architecture is crucial. A policy-driven archive action should not be confused with a way to bypass retention. Archived files remain subject to the applicable governance framework; archive is intended to change the content’s storage and availability posture, not erase the organization’s evidentiary obligations.
Microsoft’s SharePoint and OneDrive retention guidance explicitly says that archived SharePoint sites are supported by retention configurations. The workload-specific retention documentation also explains that content can remain available for compliance use even as retention policy timers, labels, records controls, and deletion rules govern its lifecycle.
Records, holds, and disposition still require careful design
Administrators should not treat the forthcoming Archive option as a replacement for records management. Microsoft distinguishes ordinary data lifecycle management from records management, recommending retention labels with records management capabilities for information with high-value business, legal, or regulatory recordkeeping requirements. Microsoft’s DLM guidance makes that separation explicit.That distinction becomes especially important where organizations use:
- Retention labels for document-level classification.
- Record labels to restrict edits or deletion.
- Regulatory record labels for stronger immutability controls.
- eDiscovery holds associated with investigations or litigation.
- Disposition review before eligible records are destroyed.
- Event-based retention tied to contract completion, employee departure, or other business events.
That means the future quality of a retention-based archive deployment will depend on good information architecture. An organization that has never defined what makes a document inactive, which files are records, how long they must be kept, or who owns disposition decisions will not solve those gaps merely by adding an archive destination.
Copilot Relevance: A Practical Benefit With Governance Implications
Reducing stale context
Microsoft’s framing repeatedly links archiving to Copilot relevance. The logic is straightforward: when users ask Copilot to summarize company knowledge, prepare a proposal, identify current policies, or retrieve the latest project context, historical and inactive files can introduce noise.An obsolete sales deck, expired policy, superseded procedure, or old engineering plan might remain accurate in a historical sense while being harmful in a current-work context. The more such material crowds the active content estate, the greater the risk that users receive answers grounded in information that is no longer operationally authoritative.
Microsoft says archived files and sites are removed from Copilot’s active index, while remaining available through archive-aware search and compliance workflows. The Microsoft 365 Archive overview describes this as Copilot optimization, with archived content excluded from Copilot training and active relevance signals.
The terminology here needs precision. Removing archived content from Copilot’s active index does not mean that content ceases to exist, loses its permissions model, or becomes undiscoverable for permitted archival and compliance searches. It means the content is no longer treated as everyday active knowledge for the purpose of producing routine Copilot responses.
Better AI answers require better lifecycle policy
The potential benefit is substantial. A team can keep historical data available for audit, legal, or research purposes without letting every old file compete with current documents during AI-grounded work.But this also introduces a clear governance risk: an overbroad archive policy may reduce Copilot’s access to information that is old but still operationally significant.
Some content ages without becoming obsolete. Product safety documentation, architectural decisions, long-term customer commitments, intellectual property records, and institutional knowledge may be older than a policy’s inactivity threshold yet vital to current work. If that information is archived automatically, users may assume Copilot’s answer is complete when it is actually limited to the active corpus.
The right objective is therefore not “archive everything old.” It is to distinguish between:
- Information that is historical and rarely needed.
- Information that is evergreen or authoritative.
- Information that should be preserved as a formal record.
- Information that can be deleted when its retention period ends.
OneDrive Is the Strategic Expansion
The proposed inclusion of OneDrive is especially notable. SharePoint is often thought of as the shared repository, while OneDrive is treated as personal working storage. In reality, OneDrive frequently contains important organizational material: drafts that became final documents, role-specific work products, research files, shared project assets, and records that persist after employees leave.Microsoft’s current general file-level archive documentation focuses on SharePoint sites and identifies file archive as currently available only there. The Microsoft 365 Archive overview also warns that copied or moved archived files may not always display their archived state in the OneDrive interface. The roadmap item is therefore notable because it specifically describes policy-based archiving for both OneDrive and SharePoint files. Microsoft’s roadmap entry
That broader coverage could be valuable for organizations managing departed-user content and long-lived personal workspaces. Microsoft’s retention guidance states that, when a user leaves, OneDrive files under retention policy or label remain subject to those settings for the applicable retention period and continue to be discoverable through Content Search and eDiscovery. Microsoft’s SharePoint and OneDrive retention guidance makes clear that retention does not simply end with account deprovisioning.
A retention-based archive action could give administrators a more orderly way to handle retained, low-activity OneDrive material without forcing it to remain in the active tier indefinitely.
Limitations and Risks Administrators Must Plan For
Archive does not eliminate the need for user education
Microsoft cautions that support for archived files is still evolving across clients and services. Its archive overview identifies potential issues with certain Microsoft 365 applications and surfaces limitations involving Word and PowerPoint for the web, mobile applications, macOS OneDrive sync, older Windows versions, older Office desktop builds, and some services that attempt to import archived content. Microsoft’s documented file archive limitations recommend using file-level archive thoughtfully and ensuring that users understand how to reactivate files when access is needed.This is not a minor usability concern. A policy that moves files automatically can generate help desk incidents if employees see unexpected open errors, missing sync behavior, confusing archive indicators, or app-specific failures.
Organizations should prepare communications that explain:
- What archived status means.
- Which types of work should remain active.
- How archived files appear in SharePoint and OneDrive.
- Who can reactivate a file.
- What happens when a user needs a document quickly.
- Which client versions and platforms may require updates or alternative workflows.
Reactivation is not a trivial loophole
Microsoft says reactivation of SharePoint archived content became free on March 31, 2025, but content that has been reactivated cannot be re-archived for four months. Microsoft’s archive pricing documentation identifies that four-month re-archive restriction as a guardrail after reactivation.That restriction should shape policy design. If a file regularly moves between active work and dormant status, it may be a poor candidate for automatic archival. The archive tier is best suited to genuinely cold information, not files whose activity cycles every few weeks.
Storage reporting can be misunderstood
File-level archive also requires disciplined financial reporting. Microsoft notes that archived files continue to be accounted for in the tenant’s overall storage picture, even though they no longer consume the active storage category in the same way. Microsoft’s archive pricing model explains that archived files inside active sites are separately considered archive storage, while retained content can still influence site storage behavior through preservation mechanisms.Administrators should avoid promising a simple “X terabytes removed” result. The more accurate metric is likely to be active storage reclassified to archive storage, together with any resulting reduction in premium storage exposure.
Policy conflicts will not vanish
Retention configurations are inherently complex. A file might be covered by a site-wide retention policy, a published retention label, a record designation, an eDiscovery hold, and a disposition process. Microsoft documents distinct policy and label precedence behavior, including the fact that retention labels offer item-level granularity and can support capabilities that retention policies cannot. Microsoft’s retention overview also notes that a single item can have only one retention label at a time.The arrival of an archive action makes lifecycle policy more powerful, but it also raises the stakes of testing. Administrators should evaluate the archive outcome against realistic combinations of:
- Existing retention policies.
- Retention labels and default labels.
- Record and regulatory record labels.
- Preservation Hold library behavior.
- eDiscovery holds.
- User moves, copies, edits, and deletions.
- OneDrive departure and offboarding workflows.
- Site archive configurations.
A Sensible Preparation Plan Before September
The feature is not expected to be generally available until September 2026, but the planning work should begin before the administrative control arrives. A strong deployment will be based on content governance decisions, not only on storage pressure.1. Identify genuinely inactive content classes
Begin with business categories, not storage size alone. Large video files and recordings might be excellent archive candidates, but so might long-retained operational files that are compact yet seldom accessed.Potential candidates include:
- Closed-project deliverables and evidence.
- Historic event material.
- Superseded policy versions retained for audit.
- Completed customer engagement documentation.
- Aged research files.
- Long-lived technical reference packages.
- Departed-user OneDrive material under preservation requirements.
2. Separate archival rules from deletion rules
Archive is a preservation-oriented state. Deletion is a final disposition action. Those decisions must remain distinct.A sensible sequence may be:
- Keep the document active while it supports regular work.
- Archive it after a defined inactivity or lifecycle trigger.
- Retain it in archive for the required period.
- Route it for disposition review or deletion only when policy permits.
3. Test in representative SharePoint sites and OneDrive scenarios
A pilot should not use only a clean test site. It should include libraries with active permissions, version history, sensitivity labels, retention labels, records, large files, external sharing history, and common applications.Testing should also include search, eDiscovery, export, reactivation, and end-user access flows. Microsoft says archived content can remain searchable in archive-aware SharePoint and OneDrive search experiences, with permission trimming still applied. Microsoft’s archive search documentation confirms that archived results can be located by users through archive-specific search filters.
4. Establish ownership and exception processes
Every automatic archive policy needs an accountable owner. That owner should be able to answer why a class of content is archived, whether it can be reactivated, which records remain active, and what exception path applies to business-critical historic material.An exception process is particularly important for content that is old but authoritative. Without one, users may resort to unofficial copies, duplicated libraries, or unmanaged local storage to avoid automated archive behavior.
The Bigger Shift: Storage Tiering Becomes a Compliance Control
Microsoft Purview DLM’s forthcoming ability to archive OneDrive and SharePoint files under retention is significant because it changes the role of archive from a mostly administrative storage tactic into a policy-controlled lifecycle state.The strongest aspect of the announcement is its attempt to align four priorities that are too often managed separately:
- Compliance retention for information that cannot be discarded.
- Storage optimization for content that no longer warrants active-tier treatment.
- eDiscovery and searchability for data that must remain retrievable.
- Copilot relevance for users who need AI grounded in current organizational knowledge.
If implemented with that discipline, retention-based file archiving can give Microsoft 365 administrators something they have long needed: a credible way to keep important data without letting inactive data dominate the active workplace.
References
- Primary source: Microsoft 365 Roadmap
Published: 2026-07-28T22:43:45.1902826Z
Microsoft 365 Roadmap | Microsoft 365
The Microsoft 365 Roadmap lists updates that are currently planned for applicable subscribers. Check here for more information on the status of new features and updates.www.microsoft.com
- Related coverage: learn.microsoft.com
Learn about retention policies & labels to retain or delete | Microsoft Learn
Learn about Microsoft 365 retention policies and retention labels to retain what you need and delete what you don't to manage your organization's data.learn.microsoft.com - Related coverage: techcommunity.microsoft.com
