My ideas: Advanced rule conditions and actions

Ability to change the channel used when replying or forwarding with rules. This useful when a conversation moves around multiple inboxes with different channels. This applies to the CSAT rule template too.

We want to begin using the auto replies, but it only replies back to the actual sender. Not the email addresses within CC etc.

The existing time criteria all exist as conditions to rules rather than triggers. For an overnight coverage use case it would be extremely helpful to have a time-based trigger be capable of taking action on a conversation. "When the clock strikes ...

Be able to create a test suite of conversations and the desired branch that was taken for them in a Front rule. If I had this capability, I could ensure that any new changes to a branch by Autopilot answer rule did not break backward compatibility...

Extend PDF support in Workflows so the “Branch by Autopilot Answer” node can evaluate data extracted from PDF attachments and route accordingly. The primary use case is customers needing to branch workflow logic based on information contained in a...

Be able to extract and transform attachement content data to use in dynamic variables in workflows. For example: extract attachment info > use in API request to create order request in TMS

Our company uses two resolved statuses: Resolved and No Action. When creating a ‘Requires Tag’ rule in Front, we’d like the rule to exclude conversations that have been resolved/archived with the No Action status.

Use the "reply-to" field for auto replies instead of the "from:" field.

Allow rules to reply all instead of replying to the sender.

Giving Admins more confidence that no conversations are left behind thanks to rules. Front already supports queuing conversations that cannot be assigned immediately but we want to make improvements to the experience: giving Admins visibility on t...