Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at 7. In the absence of that certification, the Court has little difficulty concluding that the complaint was not served, and that in consequence, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirement of Rule 25(a)(3) to serve the motion to substitute “on nonparties as provided in Rule 4.” Id. (emphasis added); see George v. United States, 208 F.R.D. at 31-32 (stating “non-party successors or representatives of the deceased party must be served the suggestion of death in the manner provided by Rule 4 for the service of a summons” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). It is axiomatic that a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a would-be party that has not been “served with a copy of the complaint.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(1); see Ayres v. Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A, 99 F.3d 565, 570 (3d Cir.1996) ; Macaluso v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rule 45b does not require personal service
B. holding that personal jurisdiction is not conferred if service under rule 4 is not properly effected
C. holding rule 45b does not require personal service to the exclusion of other manners of service so long as the nonpersonal service was effected by means reasonably sure to complete delivery
D. holding that if good cause does not exist the court has the discretion to either dismiss the action without prejudice or direct that service be effected within a specified time
E. holding that delivery of subpoena via federal express was sufficient because effective service under rule 45 is not limited to personal service
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.