the mandatory nature of the notice required in § 1607(a) ("[w]ritten notice of seizure ... shall be sent to each party who appears to have an interest in the seized article”) and the discretionary nature of the notice required by § 853(n) ("[t]he Government may also, to the extent practicable, provide direct written notice to any person known to have alleged an interest in the property”) may call into question the court’s reasoning. We leave this dispute to another day, when the issue is critical to the resolution of a particular case. 4 . The Supreme Court recently explained that actual notice is not necessary to satisfy § 1607’s mandatory notice provision, in a case not involving § 853. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 169-70, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (<HOLDING>). We use actual receipt of the May 13 letter in
holding that actual receipt of notice is not necessary to satisfy  1607 or due process the government need only make an effort that is  reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action holding that due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under all circumstances to provide parties with notice of the pending action holding that alien need not receive actual notice for due process requirements to be satisfied holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action