Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
adequacy of the summons in light of Rule 4.15(F), we bear in mind the constitutional due process protections which a defective summons must nevertheless satisfy.” In re J.H., 898 N.E.2d 1265, 1270 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied. "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality, is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objec tions.” Munster, 829 N.E.2d at 58. However, Trial Rule 4.15(F) cures only technical defects in service of process, not a total failure to serve process. LaPalme, 621 N.E.2d at 1106; see also Idlewine v. Madison Cty. Bank & Trust Co., 439 N.E.2d 1198, 1201-03 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) ; Kelly v. Bennett, 732 N.E.2d 859, 862
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation
B. holding that trial rule 415f will not cure defective service of process where no person authorized by the rules was actually served
C. holding that service to defendants business address resulted in total failure to serve process rather than mere technical defect and thus could not be cured by rule 415f
D. holding service of process defective when the receipt card was signed by someone who was not the registered agent
E. holding service of process defective when the return receipt is not signed by the addressee
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.