Letter to the Editor
To the Editor,
There has been growing confusion around public records and the use of email file formats, such as MSG and EML. Recently, the Town Attorney and Alderman LaCroix suggested these files are unsafe or easily manipulated. That claim is misleading and distracts from the real issue, preserving the integrity of public records.
MSG and EML files are original email files. They are not documents recreated later or compiled for convenience. They are the actual container that holds an email exactly as it existed when it was sent or received. A simple way to think about it is a sealed envelope. Everything that belongs with that email lives inside that container.
That container includes:
• The sender and recipient
• The date and time
• Routing information showing how the message traveled
• Attachments
• And hidden technical data, known as metadata, that verifies authenticity
All of this information exists together inside one structured file¹.
This matters because metadata is how authenticity is verified. Metadata shows when an email was created, whether it was forwarded, how it moved through mail servers and whether it has been altered. This is why digital forensics professionals preserve emails in their original MSG or EML format when accuracy and integrity matter².
Converting an email to a PDF, however, fundamentally changes the records.
A PDF is not an email. It is a flat visual snapshot of what someone chose to display on a screen at a specific moment. When an MSG or EML file is converted to PDF, much of the underlying structure is lost. Metadata is removed or hidden. Routing details disappear. Attachments may be separated or omitted. What remains is something that looks like an email but no longer contains the full electronic record³.
This is where the misunderstanding occurs…
An original MSG or EML file is not casually editable. Meaningful alteration requires specialized technical knowledge and software, and even then, changes tend to leave detectable inconsistencies or corrupt the file. That is precisely why investigators rely on native email files, the structure makes improper changes easier to detect, not easier to conceal⁴.
PDFs are different. They are designed for presentation and sharing. They are widely editable, easily re-saved, and changes can be made without obvious signs to the average viewer. Once an email has been converted to PDF, the original electronic evidence is already gone. So, when the Town Administration claims that providing native email files is a security risk, the logic is backwards. If anything, unnecessary conversion creates risk, because it removes the very information that allows records to be verified as complete and authentic.
Public records laws exist to promote transparency and trust. That goal is best served when records are provided in the form in which they already exist, not altered, flattened, or reformatted in ways that obscure important details.
If we care about accountability, accuracy, and public confidence, we should insist on preserving records as they are not settling for simplified versions that tell only part of the story. If the town has nothing to hide then they should have no problem giving me the records in their natural state.
Sincerely,
Kim Parks, Farragut
Footnote Sources
1. Internet Message Format, RFC 5322 – defines the structure of EML email files
2. Swailes Computer Forensics, Email Evidence: Why Metadata Matters
3. CoolUtils, What Is an EML File?
4. Aryson Technologies, Analyzing EML Files for Forensic Investigations
