I didn't realize the signatures were leaked as well. Surprised nobody has looked at this yet, if we have cryptographic proof that certain emails are genuine, that shoots down a big counter-argument of "what if some emails are planted".
There has been no evidence yet that the emails were doctored. What there has been, as one journalist put it, was efforts to conflate "wikileaks emails" with "unsourced shit I saw on Twitter".
Very cool research!<p>Is there any proof-of-existence archive of DKIM keys or DNS record changes in general? Seems like a perfect use case for blockchain[1]. If the DKIM keys were rolled over or replaced since they were originally sent out, there wouldn't be anything to compare them against. Having a record that can show proof-of-existence (at a min point in time) would cover that.<p>[1]: <i>Ha! I knew there would eventually be a legit use case!</i>
I think the major problem of this election is deciding on what the truth is but since everything can be rewritten, links broken, and data lost there is too much noise to get a clear signal. We need a trust/identity protocol that allows us to take history in account I wrote a draft of a whitepaper on a possible way to implement this with blockchains and cross-signing
<a href="https://hashd.in/hashd-in-draft0/" rel="nofollow">https://hashd.in/hashd-in-draft0/</a>
Yes, the interesting thing would be if any emails with controversial content can be verified. I don't think there were any real bombshells in the wikileaks emails, but still...