[snarf21]

I hope I don't seem critical because that is not my intent. It seems like this is about misusing no-reply@ not that no-reply@ is inherently bad. Github completing a merge of a branch onto master seems like a fine use case for no-reply@. Using no-reply@ to tell someone they are overdue on their bill is not. Or are you saying there is literally never a reason for a no-reply@ address?

Additionally, if a service is over sending, there are lots of unsubscribe laws and rules to address that to your own personal preference.

[iffycan]

I won't say never. I think your distinction (GitHub merge vs bill overdue) might strike the right balance, but I'm having trouble sorting out what the principle is that distinguishes those two.

As I've never even paid attention to the sending address of GitHub merge notifications, perhaps the principle is: "If someone notices that your email came from noreply@ then you shouldn't use noreply@"

(And, no, you don't seem critical -- more like thoughtful)