There should be one agreed answer to whether email is part of the postal channel, but the C&R on the topic is not self-evidently right. I like the “email is mail” metaphor, for reasons I’ve explained. But I also see the appeal of observing that all of the alternate methods of service in Article 10 have authorized people in the loop. In the early days of email there was some thought that postal services would offer e-post service. It generally hasn’t worked out that way. It’s fair to ask whether something can be “postal” without a postman.

Glad you like the haiku!

But had they done their homework and been unable to find an address, then the Convention wouldn’t apply in the first place. That would make 4(f)(3) e-service completely valid.

One thing the 2d Cir. opinion gets wrong is the contention that e-mail is not a postal channel. The HCCH has much to say on the subject, as you’ve covered extensively. Thankfully, this is just dicta.

In any event, it’s too bad SmartStudy’s counsel weren’t smart enough to study what we’ve written. Or to pick up the phone and spend ten minutes getting our thoughts.

(Spectacular haiku!)