I must stress I am addressing the situation where sign is the only option chosen -- not sign+encrypt. If I choose sign only (no encryption), shouldn't it default to clearsign?
As I read the man page:
Sign = Letter signature which may contain binary code
Sign + Ascii = Letter Signature which is purely ascii armored
Clearsign = Append the Signature to the Original letter but keep the contents of the letter legible
So if I just wanted to sign a letter -- but not encrypt it, wouldn't I want to just clearsign the letter? This would keep the letter readable by those who did not use gpg/pgp. If Im not mistaken I believe enigmail works this way by clearsigning the document. I'm asking only for the situation where sign is chosen, not sign+encrypted. But wouldn't it be possible to clearsign and encrypt too, although I guess it really wouldn't matter in this case.
From the gpg man pages:
Commands to select the type of operation
--sign
-s Make a signature. This command may be combined with --encrypt
(for a signed and encrypted message), --symmetric (for a signed
and symmetrically encrypted message), or --encrypt and --symmet-
ric together (for a signed message that may be decrypted via a
secret key or a passphrase).
--clearsign
Make a clear text signature. The content in a clear text signa-
ture is readable without any special software. OpenPGP software
is only needed to verify the signature. Clear text signatures
may modify end-of-line whitespace for platform independence and
are not intended to be reversible.
--detach-sign
-b Make a detached signature.
Wouldn't clear sign be the default preference because in this case only OpenGPG is needed to verify the signature if sign is only chosen as an option?
Can you explain the three parts of the letter specifically with the mechanism currently in place.
The contents of the letter represent = ?
Noname = ?
Encrypted.asc = ?
Should all these parts be appended if I just elect to use sign?
.