re-type.com
Its Domain Power Rank is moderate.
- Global Rank
- #399,995
▲ 43,602
- Rank in TLD
- #165,606
▲ 15,698
- Referring Domains
- 80
▼ 5
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 30.1
- Subdomains
- 1
- Domain age
- 21 yr 1 mo
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 30.1
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 27.7
- Referring Domains
- 80
- Linked Domains
- 399
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 8
10–19 17
20–29 19
30–39 17
40–49 9
50–59 5
60–69 3
70–79 0
80–89 0
90–100 2
Total 80
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| microsoft.com | 91.9 | #33 |
| adobe.com | 90.7 | #43 |
| domestika.org | 64.1 | #8,570 |
| fontsinuse.com | 62.0 | #12,308 |
| webdesignerdepot.com | 60.5 | #16,068 |
| fontlab.com | 58.3 | #23,835 |
| slanted.de | 53.3 | #55,115 |
| tdc.org | 53.1 | #57,714 |
| v-fonts.com | 50.2 | #92,629 |
| devroye.org | 50.0 | #96,284 |
Basic Information
- TLD
- .com
- Registration date
- 24 Sept 2005
- Last updated
- 17 Sept 2026
- Expires
- 24 Sept 2027 (323 days remaining)
- Domain statuses
- clientDeleteProhibited clientTransferProhibited
- Registry
- VeriSign Global Registry Services
- Registrar
- Dinahosting s.l.
Subdomain
www.re-type.com
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | re-type.com | 300 | 82.98.171.88 |
| MX | re-type.com | 300 | 10 mail.re-type.com |
| NS | re-type.com | 300 | ns2.dinahosting.com |
| NS | re-type.com | 300 | ns.dinahosting.com |
| NS | re-type.com | 300 | ns4.dinahosting.com |
| NS | re-type.com | 300 | ns3.dinahosting.com |
| SOA | re-type.com | 300 | ns.dinahosting.com. dnsadmin.dinahosting.com. 2024021301 3600 120 1209600 300 |
| TXT | re-type.com | 300 | v=spf1 include:_spf.createsend.com a mx ~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.