Screenshots aren't evidence.
Cryptographic Emails are.
Forward any invoice, contract, or corporate correspondence to ProofCore. We verify the sender's DKIM signature, cryptographically bind the attachments, and anchor the byte-perfect evidence to the TON Blockchain, preserving the DNS state needed to independently re-evaluate the signature later.
The DNS Key Rotation Dilemma
Checking DKIM years later usually fails because companies rotate their DNS keys. ProofCore takes a forensic snapshot of the public DNS TXT record at the exact moment of ingestion, preserving the data needed for future verification.
VERIFY DKIM
Cloudflare Workers extract the raw .eml and verify the cryptographic DKIM signature against the sender's DNS.
ANCHOR
The raw email, metadata, and DNS snapshot are hashed and anchored to the TON Blockchain.
DOWNLOAD
Get a self-authenticating ZIP package with 100% offline verification tools and forensic PDF certificates.
Free during Beta ยท Forward to [email protected]
Flexible Ingestion Workflows
Counterparties visibly see ProofCore in the CC thread. Acts as an immediate psychological deterrent against invoice fraud, disputed terms, and non-delivery claims.
Recipients never see ProofCore. Because RFC 6376 DKIM never binds the Bcc header, your evidence is anchored to TON in stealth mode without alerting the counterparty.
Forensic Demonstration
A Corporate Email, Dissected
This specimen demonstrates how ProofCore parses raw RFC 5322 headers, verifies the DKIM domain signature, and cryptographically binds MIME attachments.
Invoice #INV-2026-08 - Due Payment
Please find attached the finalized invoice for Q3 software development services. As agreed, the total is $45,000.
Best regards,
Alice
ProofCore Verification Summary
Level 1: DKIM Authentication
Level 2: Raw Forensic Metadata โผ
{
"type": "Email Notarization",
"email_headers": {
"message_id": "<[email protected]>",
"subject": "Invoice #INV-2026-08 - Due Payment",
"from": "[email protected]",
"to": ["[email protected]", "[email protected]"],
"attachments": [
{
"filename": "Invoice_Q3.pdf",
"size_bytes": 245100,
"sha256_hash": "118acdf1eee45227b2cda5c0ebfa1c832afa106787db8f39878f31e1b305ef38"
}
]
},
"dkim_forensics": {
"status": "PASS",
"domain": "megacorp.com",
"selector": "20230601",
"dns_public_key": "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0... [REDACTED FOR DEMO]"
}
}
Level 3: Standalone Evidence Package
Contains the original .eml file, forensic JSON, and a PDF certificate containing cryptographic information that may support authentication.
High-Stakes Commercial Scenarios
Where Unverified Emails Cost Real Money
Ordinary email is vulnerable to spoofing, key expiration, and claims of non-receipt. ProofCore anchors the forensic trail before disputes arise.
Invoice Disputes & Altered Bank Details
Counterparties frequently claim invoices were never received on time or allege that wire instructions were altered in transit.
Contractual Notices & Termination Deadlines
Service cancellations or lease terminations often trigger litigation when a party claims the email notice missed the mandatory 30-day window.
IP Infringement, NDA & Cease-and-Desist
Proving that a formal infringement notice was delivered or establishing the exact date proprietary specs were disclosed under an NDA.
Purchase Orders & Procurement Scope
Disagreements over agreed project specs, revision limits, or pricing tables when suppliers deliver non-conforming goods.
Epistemic Clarity
Clear mathematical boundaries for legal engineering and corporate compliance.
๐ข What ProofCore Proves
- Integrity of the captured .eml file.
- Mathematical binding of the extracted MIME attachments.
- The email contains a valid DKIM signature associated with the sending domain at verification.
- The specific DKIM signing domain and selector.
- DNS public-key state observed at ingestion.
- Cryptographic timestamp and blockchain anchoring.
- Reproducibility of the mathematical verification process.
๐ด What ProofCore Does NOT Prove
- The human identity of the individual sender.
- That the sender personally authored the message.
- Factual truthfulness of the contents.
- That the sender's account/device was not compromised.
- That the recipient actually read the email.
- That the email constitutes a legally binding agreement.
- Automatic admissibility in court.
- QES (Qualified Electronic Signature) / qualified trust-service status.
Case Law & Precedents
Why Email Screenshots Fail in Court
โ๏ธ Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. (2007) โ
The US District Court rejected email printouts because the parties failed to authenticate them. The court established a five-step test emphasizing that visual depictions without underlying metadata and hashes are legally vulnerable.
โ Lesson: Screenshots are unauthenticated rendered outputs, not evidence.
๐ Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr. (2nd Cir. 2023) โ
The plaintiff submitted a JPEG screenshot of a digital conversation. Forensic examination revealed it was fabricated. The court applied terminating sanctions, completely dismissing the lawsuit for spoliation of evidence.
โ Lesson: Submitted evidence must be backed by reproducible cryptographic hashing.
Statutory Evidentiary Frameworks
๐บ๐ธ US Federal Rules of Evidence: Rule 902(13) & (14) โ
Rule 902 provides mechanisms for self-authentication of electronic evidence. Rule 902(14) governs data copied from an electronic storage medium authenticated by a digital identification process (e.g., SHA-256 hash value).
๐ช๐บ EU eIDAS Framework โ
Under eIDAS, electronic evidence cannot be denied legal effect solely because it is electronic. ProofCore provides a non-qualified cryptographic ledger and timestamping mechanism; this does not make ProofCore a Qualified Trust Service Provider or the ledger a qualified electronic ledger.
๐ฎ๐ณ India IT Act, 2000 (Section 65B) โ
ProofCore's evidence package can provide technical material that may assist with Section 65B requirements where applicable. Legal sufficiency depends on the applicable procedural requirements and certification.
Disclaimer: ProofCore provides technical cryptographic evidence. Admissibility and weight of evidence are determined by the relevant court or tribunal according to applicable procedural laws.