Which researchers, journalists, or labs have claimed evidence of tampering or fabrication in those emails?

1. What the supplied reporting actually covers — mail tampering and email scams

The documents you provided are largely practical and legal guides about mail tampering, mail theft, and email scams. For example, consumer and legal sites explain how to recognize mail fraud, where to report it (U.S. Postal Inspection Service), and potential penalties for tampering with physical mail ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Cybersecurity commentary in the set addresses spoofed or extortion-style emails (a variant of the “hello pervert” sextortion scam that spoofs a victim’s address), not forensic claims that a particular email batch was forged ^[3].

2. No sources here identify researchers, journalists, or labs alleging fabrication

The set does not contain reporting naming academics, investigative journalists, or forensic labs who have claimed those emails were tampered with or fabricated. The available sources instead discuss legal definitions, reporting channels, and examples of email scams; none make or document an evidentiary assertion about the authenticity of a specific corpus of leaked emails (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Official incident reporting in the set — a distinct category

One item is an official notice about an internal email-system cyber incident at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), describing “unusual interactions” between a system administrative account and user mailboxes identified in internal and independent third‑party reviews; that notice documents unauthorized access but does not accuse third parties of fabricating messages, nor does it identify external researchers or labs alleging fabrication of OCC emails ^[6].

4. How the sources treat evidence and remedies — procedural, not forensic

Legal and consumer-facing pieces in the set emphasize documenting incidents, reporting to authorities, and the criminal statutes that apply (for instance, federal mail theft and tampering statutes and reporting to the USPIS or FTC). They do not describe forensic techniques (metadata analysis, header forensics, chain-of-custody) or name labs that have undertaken such work in the context of a contested email release ^{[4] [5] [1]}.

5. Where you’d expect claims of fabrication to appear — and why they’re absent here

Claims that a set of emails was tampered with or fabricated usually come from security researchers publishing forensic analyses, investigative journalists citing independent labs, or official forensic reports. The supplied collection is dominated by legal guidance and consumer-security commentary, so it lacks the investigative or technical reporting where such claims would normally be documented — hence the absence of named researchers, journalists, or labs in these sources ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Two alternative possibilities consistent with these sources

Either (A) no credible public forensic claims exist about the specific emails you mean — which would explain their absence from this set — or (B) such claims exist elsewhere but are not captured in the current reporting you provided. The material here supports the first interpretation only insofar as it contains no allegations of fabrication and instead points readers toward reporting channels and legal remedies ^{[4] [5]}.

7. How to proceed if you want authoritative answers

To establish whether researchers, journalists, or labs have alleged tampering or fabrication, look for:

• Forensic reports by named security labs (detailed header/metadata analysis).
• Investigative articles in mainstream outlets that cite independent labs or academics.
• Official statements (e.g., agency incident reports) that confirm manipulation beyond unauthorized access.

The current sources do not include such documents; they instead describe mailbox tampering laws, reporting steps, and examples of email scams ^{[2] [1] [3]}.

Limitations: This analysis uses only the supplied sources and therefore cannot confirm or deny claims outside them; claims about a particular batch of leaked emails are not found in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).