kapehan.net
Its Domain Power Rank is relatively low.
- Global Rank
- #21,536,713
▲ 5,405,433
- Rank in TLD
- #664,910
▲ 171,168
- Referring Domains
- 7
–
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 15.7
- Subdomains
- 6
- Domain age
- 5 yr 4 mo
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 15.7
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 15.8
- Referring Domains
- 7
- Linked Domains
- 83
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 2
10–19 2
20–29 3
30–39 0
40–49 0
50–59 0
60–69 0
70–79 0
80–89 0
90–100 0
Total 7
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| newsline.co.ke | 22.0 | #7,147,135 |
| pfarrerblatt.de | 21.4 | #7,774,192 |
| bisdakwords.com | 20.3 | #9,266,041 |
| webblyfrog.net | 15.8 | #17,837,335 |
| laruysugbo.com | 11.5 | #32,371,693 |
| mysugbo.com | 9.6 | #42,148,936 |
| tambayanan.com | 9.5 | #43,316,490 |
Basic Information
- TLD
- .net
- Registration date
- 14 Jun 2021
- Last updated
- 28 Jun 2026
- Expires
- 14 Jun 2027 (221 days remaining)
- Domain statuses
- clientTransferProhibited
- Registry
- VeriSign Global Registry Services
- Registrar
- GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com
Subdomain
biz.kapehan.netclick.kapehan.netlink.kapehan.netrisen.kapehan.netweb.kapehan.netwww.web.kapehan.net
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | kapehan.net | 14400 | 163.44.242.15 |
| MX | kapehan.net | 14400 | 20 jill-relay.mailwish.com |
| MX | kapehan.net | 14400 | 10 jill.mailwish.com |
| NS | kapehan.net | 86400 | ns-wh1.web.z.com |
| NS | kapehan.net | 86400 | ns-wh2.web.z.com |
| SOA | kapehan.net | 86400 | ns-wh1.web.z.com. huynhl.runsystem.net. 2026102901 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
| TXT | kapehan.net | 14400 | v=spf1 include:mailwish.com ~all |
| TXT | kapehan.net | 14400 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarcreports@kapehan.net |
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.