With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial court erred in finding service of process was effective. We disagree. Service upon a corporation may be made “by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Rule 4(d)(3), SCRCP. Rule 4 serves at least two purposes: it confers personal jurisdiction on the court and assures the defendant of reasonable notice of the action. Roche v. Young Bros., Inc. of Florence, 318 S.C. 207, 209, 456 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1995). Exacting compliance with the rules is not required to effect service of process. Id. Not every employee of a corporation is an agent of the corporation for the purposes of service of process. See Roberson, 365 S.C. at 11, 615 S.E.2d at 115 (<HOLDING>). Whether an employee may accept service on

A: holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation
B: holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation
C: holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service
D: holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date
A.