Note that I take no position on the usefulness of these scopes. I
simply believe that, given the current state of the art about email
identities, it is better to have choice.
So why declare algorithm scope?
I could support algorithm scopes, if all applicable scopes were in a single
record. 2nd to the Nth records would be ignored.
Thus the intent would be for a single record to interopt with all current and
future scopes (updated by version number), and the sender can hint the
limitation of intended scopes. This would be more in touch with reality IMO,
and also appease the desire to give sender some input into algorithm scope,
while also preventing fragmentation and proprietary directions (wars) on DNS
records.
- Shelby Moore