difaem.de
Its Domain Power Rank is moderate.
- Global Rank
- #588,912
▲ 63,988
- Rank in TLD
- #26,266
▲ 4,080
- Referring Domains
- 100
▼ 8
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 32.9
- Subdomains
- 2
- Domain age
- –
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 32.9
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 32.6
- Referring Domains
- 100
- Linked Domains
- 92
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 9
10–19 16
20–29 18
30–39 27
40–49 15
50–59 8
60–69 5
70–79 0
80–89 1
90–100 1
Total 100
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| wikipedia.org | 91.8 | #34 |
| myportfolio.com | 82.7 | #274 |
| uni-tuebingen.de | 67.9 | #4,789 |
| aerzteblatt.de | 66.6 | #5,880 |
| diplo.de | 65.5 | #6,963 |
| ekd.de | 63.4 | #9,677 |
| fairtrade.net | 61.4 | #13,682 |
| evangelisch.de | 58.6 | #22,576 |
| drs.de | 57.9 | #25,456 |
| brot-fuer-die-welt.de | 56.6 | #32,315 |
Basic Information
- TLD
- .deGermany
- Last updated
- 28 Jan 2022
- Domain statuses
- active
- Registry
- DENIC eG
Subdomain
blog.difaem.dewww.difaem.de
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | difaem.de | 86400 | 3.66.50.156 |
| AAAA | difaem.de | 86400 | 2a05:d014:14f:aa14:553d:7422:89fe:8665 |
| MX | difaem.de | 86400 | 0 difaem-de.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| NS | difaem.de | 172800 | ns-1434.awsdns-51.org |
| NS | difaem.de | 172800 | ns-1576.awsdns-05.co.uk |
| NS | difaem.de | 172800 | ns-305.awsdns-38.com |
| NS | difaem.de | 172800 | ns-900.awsdns-48.net |
| SOA | difaem.de | 900 | ns-900.awsdns-48.net. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400 |
| TXT | difaem.de | 3600 | v=spf1 +a +mx +a:landau.jweiland.cloud include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:spf.crsend.com -all |
Email Authentication
- MX
- Valid
- SPF
- Valid
- DMARC
- Warning
DMARC is set to p=none, which does not ask receiving servers to quarantine or reject failing messages.
Some information is cached or comes from our own analysis, so it may not be current or complete. Our link analysis does not cover every link on the web. Metrics are based on our own methodology and should not be taken as definitive assessments of a domain’s or service’s quality or trustworthiness.