Skip to main content
abd_na
abd_na
Conversationalist
Nov 9, 2026 7:48 PM UTC
Question

Can a rule send trashed and spam conversations to a review inbox?

Keeping spam and trash cleanups reviewable: a review inbox with rules?

In some teams, supervisors and managers can trash or mark conversations as spam, and the same people have bonuses tied to metrics like volume or resolution rate. I don't want to remove that access, it is useful. But it is hard to check afterwards that nothing was cleaned up for the wrong reason.

What I found in the help center: Front does not scan for spam, someone marks it by hand. Trashed conversations leave Analytics. And there is a rule trigger "Conversation is deleted" that also covers conversations marked as spam, plus a "Move to inbox" action.

So my idea: a company rule that fires on "Conversation is deleted" and sends a copy of the conversation to a dedicated review inbox, readable only by an auditor or a different manager. Maybe with a tag or a comment saying who did it. Someone reviews it once a week.

Has anyone built something like this? What I don't know:
1. Does the rule really fire for spam and trash, and can "Move to inbox" work on a conversation that is already in the trash?
2. Can the rule record which teammate did the action?
3. Does the conversation stay readable in the review inbox, or does it disappear from there as well?

I may be missing a simpler way, or a feature that already exists.

    2 replies

    eddie_maguire
    eddie_maguire
    Conversationalist
    Nov 10, 2026 10:10 AM UTC

    Hi there,

    Your idea is close to something that works, but the docs leave gaps on the exact behaviour, so test it before you rely on it for audits.

    1. Does the rule fire, and can “Move to inbox” work on a trashed conversation?
    Yes to the first part. The “Conversation is deleted” trigger also applies to conversations marked as spam, and “Move to inbox” is an available action. The unclear part is the second. Front’s rules documentation says rules don’t fire on conversations while they sit in Trash, so the move may not run, or may not behave as you’d expect. I couldn’t find a documented example of this exact combination, so create a test rule on a sample conversation first. Also, rules don’t trigger on conversations selected with the large selection method in mass actions, only the small selection method. See Select multiple conversations for mass action.

    2. Can the rule record who did it?
    I couldn’t find a rule action or variable that captures the acting teammate. A rule can add a tag or a comment, but I can’t confirm it can include the teammate’s name. If you need this attribution reliably, ask Front Support whether it’s available on your plan, or whether an API or webhook route fits better.

    3. Will the conversation stay readable in the review inbox?
    This is the part to test. A trashed conversation is excluded from Analytics and stays in Trash, and it can be restored at any time. If an admin enables a data deletion policy, trashed and spam conversations are permanently deleted after 7 days with no recovery. Check whether that’s on for you, because it would limit a weekly review.

    A simpler pattern to consider: rather than reviewing what has already been trashed, restrict who can trash or mark conversations as spam through permissions, and have those users archive instead. Archived conversations stay in Analytics, so volume and resolution metrics remain auditable. A rule can then route conversations tagged “spam” or “cleanup” to a review inbox before anything is deleted.

    abd_na
    abd_naAuthor
    Conversationalist
    Nov 10, 2026 3:02 PM UTC

    Hi, thank you for the detailed answer, and for being clear about what the docs do not say. That already helps.

    One clarification on my side: in my case the permissions cannot simply be removed, because some people really need to trash or mark conversations as spam as part of their job. What I am looking for is a safeguard that keeps their access but leaves a trace that cannot be changed, so that someone else can review it, for example once a week. It is not aimed at any team. It is a common internal control: when the same people can clean up conversations and also have targets tied to volume or resolution rate, an independent check protects them as well.

    So I would like to ask the Front team directly :

    1. Has this need already come up, and is it on your radar?
    2. Today, is there a way to see who trashed a conversation or marked it as spam, in a log or through the API, that the person cannot edit?
    3. Is there a recommended way to keep those conversations reviewable, given that rules do not seem to run on conversations in Trash and that a data deletion policy can remove them after 7 days?

    If it is not a good fit for the product, I would be glad to know why too.

    Thanks again.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement