In message <fps06a$taq$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Graham.
<me@privacy.com> writes[color=blue]
>
>
>"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:m803s3p5htiv3dktd7vh7u0st71cg39hv7@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:08:22 +0000, Mark <markincambs@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:56:46 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:878x1aa38m.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>>>>> Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you even know is a router has SPI unless you look at the part
>>>>> numbers of the chips on the board and see if a) They support the Serial
>>>>> Peripheral Interface and b) that the appropriate pins are wired to
>>>>> other
>>>>> chip(s) which also support SPI. Whether SPI is used should be a
>>>>> decision
>>>>> for the hardware designer and be of no interest to the user, unless
>>>>> the SPI bus is brought to a connector for an add-on board - but even
>>>>> then unless the user is going to design his own add-on board this will
>>>>> be of no interest to the user.
>>>>
>>>>I think we are talking about Stateful Packet Inspection here,
>>>>[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall[/url]
>>>
>>>We are indeed.[/color]
>> I always use
>> http:\\[url]www.acronymfinder.com[/url][/color]
>
>You slashed the wrong way :-)[/color]

Does that mean he was pissing into the wind :-)

--
Spock