Noreply: a widespread practice that is not conducive to engagement

As recipients of commercial emails we are very used to encountering "no reply" senders, or messages of the type "do not reply to this email".. And as email marketing professionals, although we understand the reasons that lead to the use of this formula, we often ask ourselves the following questions "But aren't we looking for a response from the user?

We find it contradictory that when what we pursue with email marketing is to generate a behaviour in the recipient, the first thing the user encounters is a "no response". So why do we use "noreply" addresses and messages of this type in emailings? The main reason is usually the lack of resources to provide adequate user care through this medium. If we offer the user the possibility to reply to the email, there must be someone in charge of answering such replies, and in the case of mass emails, there are usually no human resources dedicated to this task.
However, it is highly recommended to offer the user the opportunity to respond to the email we send. Obviously, if it is a mass email, the possibility of replying must be accompanied by a customer service centre prepared to respond to a large number of requests and queries from users. Offering this opportunity to the user favours a brand image that is attentive to the user's needs and good customer service through this medium can ensure customer loyalty. A no-reply, on the other hand, turns communication into a one-way street, creating distance with the user, and generating an image of a lack of transparency.
In enabling the response, we should try to ensure that the address to be friendly, descriptive or even personal, to transmit proximity to the user. We must also look for consistency with the sender. For example, let's look at what leading brands in the email sector are doing, such as Litmus, Zurb or Bronto:



 
Litmus also modifies the reply address depending on the objective of the campaign:

In short, let us not forget the choice, so intrinsic to the nature of the mediumWe need to be aware of the response time to emails. If we use "noreply" out of inertia and neglect this option, we may be losing the opportunity to establish a very fruitful relationship with our users. And of course, let's not make the serious mistake of using an individual sender with a noreply address. Let's think that for mailings to smaller databases, relationship marketing and loyalty marketing, enabling this option can be as simple as directing responses to the usual customer service centre.
 Update: What does the law say?

"When communications have been sent by electronic mail, such means must necessarily consist of the inclusion of a valid electronic address where this right can be exercised, and the sending of communications that do not include such an address is prohibited". Royal Decree-Law 13/2012

Therefore, noreply itself is not illegal, but it is mandatory to include a valid reply-to address.