Share your ideas with us

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.

When a warranty is approved, you can choose to include an label. In the “Warranty claim approved” email, there is no ability to account for this decision. We would need to add an ability to have wording around a label being included as well as a label not being included. Below is an example email we have now.   Two ways this could be addressed: 1. Split this notification into 2 notifications: “Warranty claim approved - with label” and “Warranty claim approved - no label”. 2. Add Flows to Warranties with Split functionality for generated labels.

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.

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.

the only customization allowed is subject line and preview text for the reminder email, can't change the body copy of the reminder email.    benefit would be to add a secondary reminder of receiving loyalty points/an incentivization 

Allow me to still refund if I choose even if the return request has expired. Now I have to recreate the return request making more work for me.

I would like to include the RMA number barcode on the returns label. This way, upon receiving the returns label at my warehouse, I can simply scan the barcode to retrieve the RMA number. Subsequently, I can use this number to efficiently locate the corresponding RMA information within the returns system. This process will significantly enhance the operational efficiency of our RMA procedures.

I would find it very useful if I could pull the SMS communication metadata using an API. Currently it is only available as a download from the portal which makes automation impossible.

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 see that Aftership is already having public api end points available for tracking and returns. i would like to have similar one for reviews.