The problem you will still encounter is the random user names. I've got a list from one client of over 17,000 spam names that are random, and that's from about a 4 month period.

IMHO the better option would be to just block them, then write a small module to run on cron and delete the blocked users more than X days old, if the names in the user table is of concern.

Another option. With only 2 valid users in a week, set the site to where an admin has to validate an account. Let that run for a couple of weeks and there's a good chance the person spamming you will give up. After that, go ahead and open it back up. 
Jamie Holly
http://www.intoxination.net 
http://www.hollyit.net
On 6/22/2013 12:36 AM, Kamal Palei wrote:
Hi Jamie
True, but I just took a look at last 7 days data. For my site, new valid users 2 , and junk users are around 10. So in this rate if it goes, i will have more junk users than valid users.

The only option that comes to my mind is, re-use the junk user space for new users (again it may be valid or junk user). But in the process always we will have less junk users.

However I will do once I finish number of pending tasks.

Best Regards
Kamal
Net Cloud Systems
Bangalore-08


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Jamie Holly <hovercrafter@earthlink.net> wrote:
Why go through all that? You're reinventing the wheel. Just block the unwanted users and then a new user can not be created with the same name.

Also consider that a vast majority of spammers use a program to randomly generate a user name. That means that their are huge odds of them never using the same name twice for registration. 

Jamie Holly
http://www.intoxination.net 
http://www.hollyit.net
On 6/21/2013 10:15 AM, Kamal Palei wrote:
I am thinking of below solution.

For my site, it is easy for us to find who are unwanted users using some mechanism. I am planning to write a custom module, that will allow administrator to list down unwanted users and these users references I will keep in a separate table , lets call it table-a. When a new user registers, I will check table-a, and if any entry found, I will use that entry's UID, for new user. Thereby over the time, anytime you see the unwanted users in my site will be less.

Best Regards
Kamal
Net Cloud Systems, Bangalore-08


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jamie Holly <hovercrafter@earthlink.net> wrote:
The goal is to make it more difficult for people to register unwanted
accounts. You aren't going to stop it completely. Email verification is
just another hoop for them to jump through, one that is also accepted by
a vast majority of regular users. It should always be used.

Something I did for a client last year was a custom module. It did a few
things. First we could set the number of registrations per IP in a given
time frame. After that the account requires admin approval. It also
recorded all the request headers so that I could look for a pattern,
which I ended up finding. Once I was able to isolate that, I blocked
that pattern from registering, which took a client's site from a few
hundred spam registrations per day, down to one or two per week. Per my
agreement with that client, I can't give out that pattern, but doing
something similar on any site wouldn't be that complex.

A common practice now is for companies to hire people to generate these
accounts. They then use the accounts to spam your site. After that a
company contacts you regarding the spam on your site, offering to "clean
it up" and help your seo rankings. Very, very dirty indeed.

The interesting part of that is what we found out. The registrations
were happening from IP addresses all around the globe, yet the actual
spam postings were mostly from U.S. IP addresses and over 70% were from
hosting companies that offer VPS. We were successful in getting one
hosting company to shut down an account, but most just ignore it.

The whole morale of the story is vigilance. Things like CAPTCHA, email
verification and keeping bad user accounts to prevent reuse of bad names
and emails all give an extra layer of security (albeit not all that
much). Or do you believe in leaving the front door of your home standing
wide open, when you aren't there?
On 6/21/2013 1:56 AM, John Summerfield wrote:
> On 12/06/2013 10:37 PM, Jamie Holly wrote:
> > +1 to that! Also, they can't reuse the email. Make it harder on them,
> > not easier.
>
> Reread gmail's rules about its email addresses. One can generate any
> number of alternatives for any one email address. Besides, unless one
> requires email addresses to be verified during registration, users can
> use anything at all, even fred@example.net or joe@domain.test (both of
> which _can_ be valid).
>
> Email hosts often allow +arbitrarySuffix to the localpart of email
> addresses, but the "+" can be another arbitrary character, I've seen
> hyphens used.
>
> And then there are some domains where everything is delivered, if not to
> a specific addressee then to a default address and that too is configurable.
>
>
>
>

--
[ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]





--
[ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]