ift.de
Its Domain Power Rank is moderate.
- Global Rank
- #208,362
▼ 2,827
- Rank in TLD
- #8,810
▲ 263
- Referring Domains
- 131
▲ 5
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 34.6
- Subdomains
- 2
- Domain age
- No data
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 34.6
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 32.9
- Referring Domains
- 131
- Linked Domains
- 51
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 13
10–19 19
20–29 31
30–39 20
40–49 20
50–59 10
60–69 10
70–79 5
80–89 2
90–100 1
Total 131
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| europa.eu | 90.5 | #44 |
| nih.gov | 87.1 | #91 |
| frontiersin.org | 80.3 | #465 |
| bayern.de | 77.4 | #793 |
| podigee.io | 72.9 | #1,939 |
| sachsen.de | 72.1 | #2,314 |
| hamburg.de | 70.9 | #2,865 |
| bundesgesundheitsministerium.de | 70.8 | #2,928 |
| uni-tuebingen.de | 67.9 | #4,789 |
| bioeg.de | 67.2 | #5,397 |
Basic Information
- TLD
- .deGermany
- Last updated
- 9 Nov 2020
- Domain statuses
- active
- Registry
- DENIC eG
Subdomain
seminare.ift.dewww.ift.de
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | ift.de | 7200 | 88.198.28.101 |
| AAAA | ift.de | 7200 | 2a01:4f8:d0a:5278::2 |
| MX | ift.de | 3600 | 10 ift-de.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| NS | ift.de | 7200 | ns.second-ns.com |
| NS | ift.de | 7200 | ns1.your-server.de |
| NS | ift.de | 7200 | ns3.second-ns.de |
| SOA | ift.de | 7200 | ns1.your-server.de. postmaster.your-server.de. 2026081205 86400 10800 3600000 3600 |
| TXT | ift.de | 600 | v=spf1 mx ip4:88.198.28.101 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:spf.sendinblue.com include:spf.evidenz.de include:rm01.ift.de -all |
| TXT | ift.de | 600 | logmein-verification-code=d5bed3b1-e2d2-4155-b480-ff40710eef97 |
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.