4 ms·

It wouldn’t prove they were authentic. It would just prove they were sent through gmail’s servers. If you trusted gmail then it would prove the username, time a

• donmcronald 6y ago
  It would be immediately obvious if they were a poor quality fake though. Like if someone typed it up in Word and exported it to PDF they wouldn’t be able to produce the DKIM signature.
• onionisafruit 6y ago
  It could prove it was sent through gmails servers on April 17, 2015. There aren’t many people who would know the importance of the meeting five years ago. It would narrow the list of possible senders.
  • takeda 6y ago
    That information would still be meaningless unless we could prove that this e-mail is authentic. `v.pozharskyi.ukraine@gmail.com` - why would an Ukrainian citizen have "ukraine" in their e-mail address? There are so many other red flags (in addition whether this e-mail was really send, and the account belongs to that person) for example if Hunter responded to it (if they had his laptop surely they could get that from outbox? Why somebody who cares enough about their laptop to get it to repair (if you have plenty of money, more likely you'll get a new one) not care about getting it back? This would prove that gmail indeed sent the e-mail, but it wouldn't prove that the e-mail wasn't created few minutes earlier.
• cm2187 6y ago
  I think DKIM also signs the sender of the email. Does gmail enforces that only the owner of the mailbox can be the sender?