Share your ideas with us

Hi there,    We’re planning to fully transition to your warranty return platform and would like to see the following improvements: * Dynamic Reference Lines on Return Shipping Labels: We’d like the option to add customizable reference lines on shipping labels. While there are default placeholders available, we need a more flexible solution to include internal notes that will help us organize returns efficiently. * Delayed Replacement Order Processing: We’d prefer the ability to process a replacement order without sending it to Shopify until the carrier marks the warranty return as “en route.” * Regex Validation for Warranty Intake Form: Adding regex validation would help us ensure inputs follow specific formats, such as order numbers or serial numbers, for better accuracy.

On the tracking dashboard customers/users need to be able to click to grab, then drag and drop the order we desire our packages to be in.

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.

Some customers enter +1 before their phone number when requesting a return or exchange. This causes the shipping label to fail to generate and creates frustration for the customer and extra work for me. I would like the system to correct the phone number to allow successful label generation.

Honestly, this would help us to ease our shoppers through possible delays proactively.

I would like to view the chart showing reasons for late shipments in the current on-time report that I am using.

The ability to see how much it cost per tracking label for the carrier, alongside all the other analytics would be beneficial to business operations.   Having “cost” as a piece of data collect and display in analytics will help us make larger business decisions when it comes to choice of carrier preferences to know which carrier is best to work with in the long run. I believe this feature will be great value add to Aftership as well!

While using personalization, I want to understand the actual product results generated by these algorithms and the reason behind the chosen product displays for shoppers.   If I can preview the recommendation results in the admin, it would reduce uncertainty, ensure optimal outcomes, and improve my marketing strategies to boost conversions.

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.

Hello AfterShip Team, We run an e-commerce platform that sells digital licenses and premium accounts (our store is https://accountlicense.ir/). We are looking to use AfterShip to manage our post-purchase experience and customer tracking, but we've run into a limitation because our products are purely digital. Currently, AfterShip is heavily tailored toward physical goods with carrier tracking numbers. Since we deliver license keys and credentials digitally (via email/SMS), we would love to see a dedicated "Digital Delivery Flow" in AfterShip. Specifically, it would be amazing to have: 1. A tracking page layout optimized for digital goods that displays license activation instructions or download links instead of shipping carrier maps. 2. Webhook and API triggers that update the order status to "Delivered" when the digital product is sent to the customer's portal or inbox. 3. Custom post-purchase emails specifically designed to track when a customer reveals or views their digital key. This feature would be incredibly helpful for digital merchants like us. Currently, adapting standard physical tracking for a site like https://accountlicense.ir/ requires confusing workarounds. Are there any plans to support customized tracking portals for digital-only products in your roadmap? Thank you!