--textmode and signing/clearsigning
wk at gnupg.org
Tue Oct 12 11:52:59 CEST 2004
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:36:45 +0200, Dirk Traulsen said:
> I assume, --text is the short of --textmode.
Yes. Though thes abreviations work on the command line only.
> Is his explanation correct and complete?
It is probably not complete but sufficient.
> 2. Why is there a difference between -t and --textmode?
> Why should it matter to pgp, whether gpg accepts a -t as a
> short form for --textmode?
There is no difference. The only thing is that for PGP 2 command line
compatibility we use a few of the short option combinations in a
special way. These PGP 2 kudges are however deprecated and may be
removed in future versions.
> 3. Does this mean
> (gpg -seat) is clearsigning the message, but
> (gpg -sea --textmode) is signing it?
You can't clearsign and encrypt a message.
"gpg -sat" is currently the same as "gpg --clearsign". "gpg -sa
--texmode" is not.
> 4. The difference between signing and clearsigning is that with
> clearsigning, the original text is preserved and fully readable
> even without a public key of the author and with
> signing, it gets compressed and safed in binary form.
It may or may not be comperssed depending on the other options.
> When I encrypt a text, it gets compressed anyway.
By default yes.
> Why does it make a difference, whether I use signing or
> clearsigning on a compressed text?
The preferred method is to use PGP/MIME (rfc3156) and not
clearsigning. If you sign files you should in general use a detached
signature so that the file may be sued without processing it through
If you file is plain ASCII --clearsign may be used to avoid the
overhead of PGP/MIME and to make verification easier. If you use a
different character set that ASCII or Latin-1 you better don't use
More information about the Gnupg-users