A fake email is just that . . . and to determine it, that's why people go to Snopes. If you disagree with why Snopes claims it is fake, that's fine . . . it's still fake.
And I find it funny that a site purporting to be an arbiter of the truth would have any kind of bias.
Snopes withered and dithered for YEARS to avoid calling Hillary Clinton a liar about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Their last dodge was to claim that her mama lied to her.
Finally they came out with the admission that even a staffer said it was made up.
More often, they take a true statement but hedge in the synopsis phrase so they can call it “innacurate” (yellow).
Also, they salt some truth with lies (like the list proclaiming that Obama went to Islamic classes, was listed as a muslim on school papers, etc. with the erroneous claim that he was sworn in on a koran).
Target hedged on reasons for turning away certain charities (I think one was a touring Vietnam Memorial and another was the Salvation Army).
Snopes ain’t worth much. The urban legend sections that made up much of their initial content were all stolen from Jan Brunvand’s well researched books on the subject.