You handle customer enquiries reliably when every message has a responsible person, a traceable status and a next step. A shared mailbox alone does not create this order. In everyday work, queries go back and forth between sales, administration and the management. This guide shows one possible operational process from receipt to a documented reply. The processing times and checks suggested are organisational recommendations, not statutory reply deadlines. An exception is requests for information under the Federal Act on Data Protection (DSG); more on this in the section on data protection and confidentiality.
Define receipt and responsibility
Decide which mailboxes actually accept customer enquiries. These include general enquiries, personal sales mailboxes and replies to ongoing conversations. Record internally who reviews each incoming message and who takes over in case of absence. Without this assignment, several people can read a message and still assume that someone else will reply.
Separate responsibility for the review from the specialist handling. Administration can assign a technical question without answering it itself. The responsible specialist then takes over content and follow-up questions. If the enquiry gets stuck with several parties, you still need one person who is responsible for the overall status.
A simple operational agreement is enough to begin with: the review takes place regularly during your business hours, open cases are discussed together and deputies know the current commitments. Choose the frequency according to your availability. Do not promise customers a response time that your team cannot keep during holidays or heavy incoming volume.
Classify first, then reply
First check the sender, the request and the history so far. Is it about a new sales opportunity, an ongoing order, an invoice or a complaint? The same person can have several open matters. Assign the message, therefore, to the specific case instead of collecting all correspondence under one unspecific contact note.
Unclear messages need a targeted follow-up question. If the date of execution and the scope of work are missing, an apparently finished quote is often premature. What belongs in a complete quote is shown in the guide Write a quote. Ask for the details that actually enable the next decision. You should not ask again for information you already have. That seems more attentive and avoids contradictory replies within the same conversation.
Introduce a small distinction between new, being clarified, reply for review and closed. These terms are a practical suggestion here, not status names guaranteed by any software. What matters is that everyone in the team understands the same meaning. “Being clarified” needs a next step; “closed” presupposes that no promised response is still open.
Check reply drafts for substance
A draft saves writing effort but does not relieve you of responsibility for the reply. Check names, facts, scope of work and any attachments mentioned. Statements about availability, delivery date and terms already promised are particularly important. A friendly reply can be factually wrong if it adopts details from another customer’s case.
Structure replies clearly: first answer the actual question, then state the information still needed and finally the next step. For a complex enquiry, a short summary of your assumptions helps. The recipients can then see whether you have understood the request correctly.
With AI-assisted drafts, read the entire text again, even if only a single wording was revised. Check in particular whether a non-binding clarification has turned into a promise. Do not add assumed order quantities or dates. What is still unclear remains visible as a follow-up question and is clarified before sending.
Keep internal approval and sending apart
The decision to create a case internally is something different from releasing a message to the outside. A contact may already exist while the reply is still being reviewed by a specialist. Likewise, an invoice draft can make sense without the invoice being issued or sent yet.
Decide, therefore, which replies the case handler may send themselves. For binding commitments, deviating contract terms or sensitive complaints, a second check can be appropriate. That is an operational risk classification. From the sources used here, there is no general obligation to have every ordinary customer email approved by two people.
After changes, check again exactly the version that is to be sent. Earlier approval of a different text does not replace this check. Also record who answers a follow-up question and when the case will be put forward again. That way approval remains a clear work step and does not become an invisible waiting place.
Practical example: bundling a workshop’s enquiries
The fictitious Bachbogen workshop receives 48 enquiries in one working week. Of these, 30 can be answered directly with the information available, 12 need technical clarification and 6 belong to administration. These figures are freely chosen example data and not a statement about typical incoming volumes or an expected gain in productivity.
The person on reception assigns all cases. Of the 12 technical clarifications, 9 are resolved by the internal meeting, and 3 are still waiting for documents. Administration answers its 6 cases. That makes 30 + 9 + 6 = 45 enquiries answered; 3 remain open with a specifically stated follow-up question. Answered does not automatically mean sold here.
During the joint review, a message with a wrong attachment is noticed. It is corrected before sending. In the example, the benefit of the process is that the three open cases remain visible and the correction takes place before the external reply. A guaranteed avoidance of errors or saving of time cannot be derived from this.
Observe contact data and confidentiality
Customer emails often contain personal data: names, contact details, job titles or details of individual orders. The Federal Act on Data Protection protects information about natural persons (Art. 5 lit. a DSG); the company name alone is not covered, but the contact person with email address and job title is. Under Art. 6, paras. 1–3 DSG, this data must be processed lawfully, in good faith, proportionately and for a specific, recognisable purpose. For handling an enquiry, the details needed for it are what counts. Distributing complete personal correspondence indiscriminately within sales is not a sensible standard for this.
Restrict access by task and content. Art. 8, paras. 1–2 DSG requires data security appropriate to the risk, through suitable technical and organisational measures. The Data Protection Ordinance requires, among other things, access control: authorised persons should have access only to the personal data they need to carry out their tasks (Art. 3, para. 1 lit. a DSV). In practice this concerns the selection of authorised persons and the checking of recipients and attachments. Private messages do not belong in sales: anyone who uses a mailbox as an inbox should be able to exclude private traffic.
Art. 6, paras. 4–5 DSG also deals with the duration of purpose and the accuracy of personal data. Data that is no longer needed is destroyed or anonymised, and inaccurate or incomplete data must be corrected, deleted or destroyed by appropriate measures. Check your retention, therefore, and correct wrong assignments.
A customer enquiry is not a blanket permit for later advertising mailings. Mass advertising sent by telecommunications that has no direct link to requested content requires, under Art. 3, para. 1 lit. o UWG, prior consent, correct identification of the sender and a reference to a simple, free way of refusing. According to the FDPIC, the exception for existing customers requires a sale or a service provided; someone who has only asked a question does not automatically belong to it.
Special cases: unsubscribing, deletion, information
Some emails are not enquiries in the sales sense. Three cases deserve a fixed rule:
- Unsubscribing: anyone who wants no more emails is removed from distribution lists at once. Processing against the express wish of the person counts as an infringement of personality rights (Art. 30, para. 2 lit. b DSG).
- Request for deletion: the law provides that data subjects can ask the court for the deletion or destruction of their personal data (Art. 32, para. 2 lit. c DSG). Do not treat the request like an ordinary enquiry, therefore, but have the responsible person review it, also with a view to retention obligations.
- Request for information: anyone can ask the controller for information on whether personal data about them is being processed (Art. 25, para. 1 DSG). The information is, as a rule, provided free of charge and within 30 days (Art. 25, paras. 6 and 7 DSG). Anyone who files and assigns enquiries cleanly can meet this.
Checklist for ongoing operation
- All relevant mailboxes and the responsible persons are known.
- A deputy is appointed for holidays and absences.
- The enquiry is assigned to the right contact and case.
- The next step and the responsible person are recorded.
- Draft, recipients and attachments were checked before sending.
- Any required internal approval and release for sending are in place.
- Open follow-up questions remain visible and are put forward again.
- Personal data is accessible only to authorised persons.
- Unsubscribe requests, deletion requests and requests for information have a fixed responsible person.
How KMU | base helps
Sales | base can use a connected mailbox as the Sales inbox. Enquiries from the inbox and, on request, from the junk folder are prepared as cases with a reply draft. Automatic messages are also recognised from the message details supplied with them. Continue to check the assignment on its merits; this gives no guarantee that every message is classified correctly.
1. Inbox. In the Sales menu, open Mailbox. There you see the views “Unclassified”, “Private”, “Filed” and “All”; with “Fetch mailbox now” you fetch new messages. The subjects of private messages are never shown. Genuine enquiries lead via “Go to case” into handling. Which mailboxes Sales fetches is set under Sales settings in the Inbox and replies tab.
2. Handle a case. Under Sales › Cases, each occasion appears with classification, reference, subject, state and deadline. In the case, you edit the reply draft yourself or have the AI revise it by instruction; every change produces a new version, and the version history shows the differences. For saved AI drafts, you see model, time and control values; these provenance details contain no email content (“Provenance of saved AI drafts”). With “Approve and send” you release exactly the version displayed; if the text changes, a new release is needed, and nothing is sent twice.
3. Rights and approval. Editing and approving are separate rights, so you decide who has the last word. You set up two-step approval in the Inbox and replies tab: first you release what is created internally (deal, step, customer, invoice draft), then, separately, sending to the outside. This applies to new cases.
4. Replies and contact. Replies to Sales emails come back via a personal reply address, appear in the Sales inbox and attach to the contact, without forwarding rules. If you archive or delete a message in your mailbox, the next folder reconciliation closes the associated open case.
On the limits: Sales fetches the inbox, reconciles folders and creates drafts in the name of a responsible person; you set this in the Inbox and replies tab, and without it these steps do not run. On the contact, the emails that run through Sales appear, not your whole mailbox. Refusals, put-offs or appointment requests do not yet trigger the next step by themselves; classify such messages yourself.
The Sales | base guide describes the operation. Before use, decide who is to assign, check on the merits and release. The software supports these work steps; checking your commitments on the merits remains with the team.
Take a look at the Demo or open a test account. You will find the current terms under Pricing; for questions, use the contact page.
Sources
- Federal Act on Data Protection (DSG, SR 235.1) (German original), Art. 5 lit. a, Art. 6, paras. 1–5, Art. 8, paras. 1–2, Art. 25, paras. 1, 6 and 7, Art. 30, para. 2 lit. b, Art. 32, para. 2 lit. c, as at 7 July 2025, accessed on 27.10.2026.
- Data Protection Ordinance (DSV, SR 235.11) (German original), Art. 3, para. 1 lit. a, as at 1 December 2025, accessed on 27.10.2026.
- Federal Act against Unfair Competition (UWG, SR 241) (German original), Art. 3, para. 1 lit. o, as at 1 January 2025, accessed on 27.10.2026.
- FDPIC: Advertising & marketing (page without a date), accessed on 27.10.2026.
This guide does not replace legal or tax advice. Information as at 27.10.2026.