Share your ideas with us

Add the option to pay online ~ $2 at checkout for free returns and extended warranty later.    Add tags to people / allow different RMA flow for those who optin to this. 

Is it possible to increase the bulk search limit from 50? We often have to peform bulk search a number of times to retrieve the data that we're looking. 

It would be very helpful to have an option to group orders by store/company name (e.g., all Amazon orders together, all eBay orders together, etc.). This way, I could collapse or expand groups and quickly view only the orders I want. Additionally, it would be great if users could create their own custom groups for even more flexibility.

As a loyal Aftership customer, I am extremely disappointed to learn that integrating a new carrier requires an additional fee—a neither transparent nor customer-friendly policy. Carrier expansion should be a standard improvement to Aftership’s platform, not an extra cost passed onto paying customers. Why This Needs to Change: Improving Aftership Should Be Your Priority, Not an Upsell Adding new carriers benefits all Aftership users. Expanding carrier integrations should be part of Aftership’s ongoing development efforts, not a hidden fee imposed on individual customers. Hidden Costs Undermine Customer Trust Nowhere in Aftership’s pricing model is it clearly stated that carrier integration comes with additional fees. This lack of transparency frustrates users and creates an unexpected financial burden. Loyal Customers Deserve Better Customers who have trusted Aftership for their business operations should not have to pay extra to access a fundamental feature like carrier support. Proposed Solution: Aftership should eliminate extra fees for new carrier integrations and invest in expanding its platform instead of charging individual users. This would be part of its commitment to improving service for all customers. Clear, upfront disclosure of costs should be required if Aftership maintains this fee structure. If Aftership truly values its customers, this change must ensure a fair, transparent, and customer-centric experience.

As a merchant, I aim to provide Aftership with supplementary shipping documents for the creation of shipping labels. By submitting these additional documents to Aftership, they can be forwarded to the carrier during the label creation process within the carrier's system.   These shipping labels and accompanying documents are essential for shipping activities, particularly for cross-border customs declaration purposes.

I guess for shipping emails sent out to my customers, it would be nice to have dynamic info that updates as the package progresses through the network. I also want all my existing emails to stay current.   The reason is simply that I wanna give my customers a unified experience by delivering consistent messages to them. I believe this will help with my customer satisfaction.

We'd like the ability to restrict which order-editing options are available on a per-country basis, rather than applying the same set of options globally.   Many merchants work with regional checkout or fulfillment partners (e.g. Global-E) that prohibit certain order changes after an order is placed in specific countries. For example, a merchant might need to limit editing to only "apply discount code" and "cancel order" for a subset of countries, while keeping the full set of editing options available everywhere else.   Being able to configure order-editing permissions by country/region would help merchants stay compliant with regional partner restrictions without giving up flexibility in other markets.

Currently, AfterShip's webhook outgoing IP list is only available on an HTML documentation page (https://www.aftership.com/docs/tracking/webhook/webhook-outgoing-ips). This makes it impossible to automate IP allowlist management in infrastructure-as-code (IaC) workflows.   Problem: Teams that use IP-based firewalls to secure their webhook endpoints must manually monitor the documentation page for any IP changes and update their firewall rules accordingly. If a change is missed, it can cause webhook delivery failures and broken integrations.   Request: Please publish the webhook outgoing IP list as a dedicated plain-text endpoint — similar to how Cloudflare publishes theirs at https://www.cloudflare.com/ips-v4 — where each IP is returned on a separate line.   This would allow teams to: * Fetch the IP list programmatically as part of their CI/CD or IaC pipelines * Keep firewall allowlists automatically in sync without manual intervention * Avoid service disruptions caused by missed IP changes This is a standard practice among major API providers and would significantly improve the developer experience for customers who manage network security programmatically.

I was just tracking my packages and thought of something and was like man I wish there would be different layouts or sorting options. Like if I could sort it by ETD Dates, etc rather than just having them all listed and me doing the mental math of 3 days from now would be Friday, etc. Since of our would be able to be listed by delivery date I would know what packages I need to be on the lookout for that day at an early glance.

Perhaps with Aftership Reviews, we could set a custom rule where if the transit time is exceeds X days, the platform won't initiate reviews.