Let's not confuse two things, here. The customer wanting to host a Tor exit relay is a different service request than wanting to run a wide-open SMTP relay. No reputable ISP would agree to host an open SMTP relay and I'm sure this one did not knowingly do so. It would be unfortunate for ISPs to come under the incorrect impression that hosting Tor is equal to hosting open SMTP. ISPs which might have been Tor-friendly at the outset would do a 180 and unnecessarily adopt a No-Tor service policy. On 07/30/2014 03:39 PM, Lunar wrote:

tor@t-3.net:

...

You somewhat made a mistake here - you've got to have an exit policy that (minimally) rejects ports 25 and 465, or else your relay becomes a giant abuse tool for spammers, scammers, and phishers instead of what you intended it to be (which was a standard-functioning Tor relay).

Please don't blame the victim. If this ISP acted differently than what they initially promised, then they are the problem.