mathallenoslo.no
Its Domain Power Rank is moderate.
- Global Rank
- #1,040,302
▼ 118,525
- Rank in TLD
- #3,606
▼ 447
- Referring Domains
- 337
▲ 25
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 25.5
- Subdomains
- 3
- Domain age
- 1 yr 6 mo
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 25.5
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 23.9
- Referring Domains
- 337
- Linked Domains
- 87
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 41
10–19 87
20–29 97
30–39 52
40–49 41
50–59 15
60–69 3
70–79 1
80–89 0
90–100 0
Total 337
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| corriere.it | 72.2 | #2,240 |
| observer.com | 69.9 | #3,463 |
| ig.com.br | 64.1 | #8,622 |
| afar.com | 61.1 | #14,482 |
| sintef.no | 59.9 | #17,692 |
| aktuality.sk | 59.7 | #18,315 |
| finnair.com | 59.1 | #20,570 |
| insidehook.com | 58.6 | #22,499 |
| ferienhausmiete.de | 58.5 | #23,107 |
| jamesbeard.org | 58.5 | #22,901 |
Basic Information
Subdomain
m.mathallenoslo.novulkanoslo-no.mathallenoslo.nowww.mathallenoslo.no
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | mathallenoslo.no | 300 | 46.250.221.29 |
| MX | mathallenoslo.no | 300 | 0 mail.intility.com |
| MX | mathallenoslo.no | 300 | 10 mail2.intility.com |
| NS | mathallenoslo.no | 86400 | amir.ns.cloudflare.com |
| NS | mathallenoslo.no | 86400 | cecelia.ns.cloudflare.com |
| SOA | mathallenoslo.no | 1800 | amir.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2418750698 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| TXT | mathallenoslo.no | 300 | brevo-code:0359af793edc3130a5d0f7e13f8b952b |
| TXT | mathallenoslo.no | 300 | mandrill_verify.JzNijmFw1Iw4Rmo2Ek7Eng |
| TXT | mathallenoslo.no | 300 | v=spf1 ip4:46.250.221.29 +a +mx +ip4:46.250.221.33 include:spf.mandrillapp.com ~all |
Email Authentication
- MX
- Valid
- SPF
- Valid
- DMARC
- Warning
DMARC is set to p=quarantine, asking receiving servers to quarantine messages that fail authentication.
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.