infolific.com
Its Domain Power Rank is moderate.
- Global Rank
- #365,890
▲ 11,833
- Rank in TLD
- #151,930
▲ 3,283
- Referring Domains
- 672
▼ 10
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 16.8
- Subdomains
- 1
- Domain age
- 15 yr 3 mo
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 16.8
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 12.7
- Referring Domains
- 672
- Linked Domains
- 4,916
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 242
10–19 245
20–29 87
30–39 53
40–49 18
50–59 16
60–69 5
70–79 4
80–89 1
90–100 1
Total 672
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| wordpress.org | 93.7 | #18 |
| harvard.edu | 83.6 | #218 |
| wordfence.com | 78.0 | #698 |
| moz.com | 77.9 | #707 |
| yale.edu | 77.6 | #756 |
| screamingfrog.co.uk | 70.8 | #2,899 |
| exlibrisgroup.com | 69.2 | #3,910 |
| commoninja.com | 67.9 | #4,804 |
| clickz.com | 64.8 | #7,737 |
| micro.blog | 63.8 | #9,054 |
Basic Information
- TLD
- .com
- Registration date
- 24 Jul 2011
- Last updated
- 24 Jul 2026
- Expires
- 24 Jul 2027 (261 days remaining)
- Domain statuses
- clientTransferProhibited
- Registry
- VeriSign Global Registry Services
- Registrar
- Moniker Online Services LLC
Subdomain
www.infolific.com
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | infolific.com | 60 | 69.163.202.241 |
| MX | infolific.com | 60 | 0 mx2.mailchannels.net |
| MX | infolific.com | 60 | 0 mx1.mailchannels.net |
| NS | infolific.com | 14400 | ns3.dreamhost.com |
| NS | infolific.com | 14400 | ns1.dreamhost.com |
| NS | infolific.com | 14400 | ns2.dreamhost.com |
| SOA | infolific.com | 60 | ns1.dreamhost.com. hostmaster.dreamhost.com. 2026091403 19623 600 1814400 60 |
| TXT | infolific.com | 60 | v=spf1 mx include:netblocks.dreamhost.com include:relay.mailchannels.net -all |
Email Authentication
- MX
- Valid
- SPF
- Valid
- DMARC
- Not configured
DMARC is not configured.
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.