There are valid scenarios for one way communication; those emails are only verifications of transaction that can't be simply altered via responding to a mail.
Email has the notion of Reply-to header, although this case, that was not populated.
Making a decision solely noreply@ is why the life of Mr. Null is quite hard.[^1]
No, gmail is not right about this.
I understand the frustration of seeing our simple and low effort mechanisms decay over the past 30 years. But I also appreciate that there might just be a need for a more symmetric social contract for engaging in the use of communications systems and other common infrastructure.
But, the task recipients face for sifting and sorting their inbox into different buckets is essentially the same faced by a notification sender who accepts feedback instead of hiding behind a no-reply address. Lacking real message authentication and authorization tools, we have to look at a mixture of content and metadata patterns to try to sort it out.
In this every gray world, I can imagine reciprocity being a useful measure...
The reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure lot's of sites (invoices/receipts/newsletters) send out stuff via a noreply intentionally.