Share your ideas with us

Support setting the total number of emails that can be sent by each contact within a certain period of time (frequency), including flows and newsletters.   I aim to reduce interruptions for my customers while still capturing important messages, which is why I am seeking more flexibility in the configurations.

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.

Goal: To make it easier for customers to accurately select the correct item for return when using the return portal. Preconditions: The customer has placed an order containing multiple items, some of which may have similar or identical titles, colors, or sizes. The SKU numbers for the items exist in the system but are not currently displayed in the return portal. Trigger: The customer initiates a return and accesses the return portal to select the item(s) they wish to return. Basic Flow: The customer logs into the return portal. The portal displays the items from their order, including details such as title, color, size, and now the SKU number for each item. The customer uses the SKU number to cross-reference their order confirmation or invoice, ensuring they select the correct item for return. The customer completes the return process with confidence that the correct item has been selected. Postconditions: The customer successfully returns the correct item without confusion. The support team receives fewer inquiries about mismatched returns. Benefits: For Customers: Improved user experience by reducing confusion when selecting items for return. Greater confidence in completing returns independently. For the Business: Reduced customer support requests related to returns. Increased efficiency in processing returns, minimizing errors caused by incorrect item selection. Priority: Medium – This enhancement has a high potential to improve customer satisfaction with a relatively low implementation effort. Technical Requirements: Modify the front-end display of the return portal to include SKU numbers as part of the product details. Ensure the SKU numbers are fetched and displayed consistently across all customer orders. This use case focuses on enhancing the clarity of the return process for customers while streamlining operational efficiency for the business.

I work in the furniture industry with thousands of products and continuous new product listings.   Consumers often inquire about variations in materials and sizes between similar pieces of furniture, placing a significant burden on my support team. Generating comparison pages for every query we receive is unfeasible due to the volume of requests.   Given the potential of AI to suggest comparable items, could it also be leveraged to pinpoint disparities among products and present these distinctions to consumers? Such a system can alleviate my workload significantly and potentially reduce bounce rates as well.

The background is that I sell my products on multiple marketplaces, and each has different return flows that the aftership Returns page cannot handle. It would be much easier if there is a Returns API that can meet my requirements below.   Need: - I need a Returns API to allow creating RMA/return requests without having to use the Returns Page to file it.  - I can call the API and pass the information regarding the Return Reason Resolution, etc in one go.  - Once I call this API, it will return creation in Pending or Auto-Approved Status.

It would be really useful to see how often the Gift Tracking Page is actually being used, separately from the regular tracking page. At the moment, it’s hard to tell uptake or performance unless the page has a unique URL or rely on Google Analytics. Having native reporting in AfterShip would make this much easier. Ideally this would show: - Views and unique visitors for the gift tracking page - How it compares to the standard tracking page - Basic engagement (e.g. CTA clicks) This would help merchants understand adoption and value of the gifting feature much more clearly.

As a business owner, having precise accounting records is essential for tax purposes. It's particularly important to account for returns correctly by adjusting for them and deducting the relevant taxes to prevent overpayment.   I've observed that Shopify currently only accommodates refunds, lacking store credit or exchange options for returns. Therefore, if aftership Return could support all three options and assist in reconciling taxes and producing accurate tax reports for returns, it would greatly benefit our operations.

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.

We should be able to update the email address on the returns and warranty pages in case the cx is unable to access the default email.

1. What is the context?  * We are currently a Premium plan subscriber operating a high-volume merchant shipping 68% of our Canadian orders via GLS Canada. We are looking to utilize the Enhanced MPS Visibility feature to improve our customer experience.   * Currently, your documentation lists carriers like FedEx, UPS, and DHL as supported for MPS, but GLS Canada is excluded. When we contacted support, we were told this is due to "carrier limitations.   2. What issue do you want to address? We believe the "carrier limitation" rationale may be outdated or incorrect because AfterShip is already successfully pulling data for GLS child packages. * Evidence: On GLS Canada tracking number P97186751, AfterShip retrieves events for both Package 1 (Delivered Nov 21) and Package 2 (Delivered Nov 19). * The Problem: Because GLS Canada is not on your "Supported Carriers" list for MPS logic, your system aggregates these distinct events into a single "scrambled" timeline instead of separating them into tabs. * The Gap: The data exists in your system; the parsing logic to separate "Master" vs. "Child" is simply missing for this specific carrier. 3. What outcome do you expect? * We request that the product team add GLS Canada to the Enhanced MPS Visibility supported carrier list * We need the system to recognize the child packages it is already detecting and display them in separate tabs (Piece 1, Piece 2), just as it does for FedEx or UPS.   4. Who will benefit from your idea? * Merchants: This allows Canadian merchants to use your Enterprise MPS features for their dominant carrier, reducing support tickets regarding "confusing" status updates. * AfterShip: It improves the value of your Enterprise plan for the Canadian market by supporting the region's major logistics provider.